Category Archives: Editorial

Editorial, Review

Answering Alan O’Reilly

Alan O’Reilly is one of those obscure people who actually sort of believes that the 1769 Edition of the KJB itself is the perfect Word of God. He states, “It took millennia for God to perfect it, the task not being finalised until Dr Benjamin Blayney’s AV1611 Edition of 1769 but Final Authority is and always will be the 1611 Authorised English Holy Bible”.

Except, he realises that there a few small issues with the 1769, so he has to encompass all editions, like Oxford, London, Cambridge Concord, PCE, etc., in other words, he is clumsily trying to tell us that he supports the 1769 family.

He says that his word/Scripture from God is “the 1611 Holy Bible in its current bona fide perfected editions that follow Dr Blayney’s 1769 Oxford Edition. With the understanding that perfection does not mean verbatim, the Cambridge Cameo and Cambridge Concord Editions are two such perfected editions even though they differ in a number of minuscule aspects from each other and from the 1769 Oxford Edition.”

As you can see, he can’t actually have the 1769 as his final standard because he knows the Cambridge Concord and the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) came after it and that they all differ to each other!

So he refers to the “book of the LORD” and is talking about perfection, but actually cannot define exactly where the exact words are… this is because he has confused the concept of version and translation with Edition (let alone setting). What he doesn’t get is that the Book of the Lord is first of all the Scripture itself, and then it is the version and translation of the King James Bible. Quite separate to that agreed truth, we have to see that we want a properly edited form of the King James Bible. Yes, Blayney’s work is good, but it certainly is not precisely perfect editing.

The Blayney Bible of 1769 is perfect in as much as the version and translation of 1611 is perfect. So that’s not the perfect we need to be talking about. We need to know what actually is correct right down to the very words and spellings. Well, Mr O’Reilly can’t tell us that, because he is busy with his arms wide saying all the editions which follow from 1769 and their little differences here and there. It seems like there is a pantheon.

He then tries to say that Dr Blayney’s 1769 Oxford Edition is “the standard edition for current bona fide perfected editions”. But how can a standard precede what came after it which is perfected? Isn’t it, as the translators of 1611 themselves stated,

“Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us”?

Well, we know that the PCE is better than the 1769.

Mr O’Reilly then takes the 12 tests to identify the PCE and analyses them in comparison to the 1769. That’s really not how the tests are to be used, as there are lists available from my website which give a more comprehensive list of differences between the PCE and 1769, and also I have a list comparing the PCE with the Cambridge text that was being printed prior to it. (As well as information on the PCE versus the Concord.)

Just using the 12 tests method, he concludes that the PCE follows the 1769 four times and restores 1611 readings eight times. This is an unscientific methodology, seeing as the PCE as a whole is like a Cambridge form of the 1769 with a few corrections, which mathematically would make it probably more than 99.99% the same as the 1769 Edition.

Mr O’Reilly then makes another kindergarten level statement, writing, “The Cambridge Cameo and PCE Pure Cambridge Edition match for all 12 readings.” If he bothered to understand what the PCE is, he would know that (a.) the PCE has been printed in many editions including the Cameo for many years, (b.) when I made the electronic text of the PCE I extensively consulted a 1938 Cameo and (c.) the Cameo of today is not PCE.

So then, Mr O’Reilly has to admit that he accepts, “the 1769 Oxford and bona fide post-1769 Editions”. Well, that is a step towards the PCE, but the problem is he is keeping his arms wide, so he wants to accept the Concord as right as well, even though the PCE and the Concord are not the same!

He then tries to explain what he calls “PCE onlyism”. He says, “Insistence on the PCE as exclusively the perfect AV1611 comes from a certain Matthew Verschuur in 2007. … He has a useful link to the PCE Text as a PDF but he also lists what I suggest that we can take as his perception of the major differences between the PCE and other AV1611 Editions that don’t follow it 100%.”

So far, what he has tried to do is minimise any of the real differences between 1769 and the PCE, or any real differences between the PCE and the Concord. He wants to keep his arms wide, and redefine what “perfect” or probably words like “exact” or “pure edition” mean.

But notice he introduces the concept that I am one who insists that the PCE is the exclusively perfect AV1611. This of course is imprecise. As I have said many times, the version-text-readings of 1611 and the translation of 1611 are right. That version and that translation is there in 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1769 and even the Concord Edition… No, as we see, Mr O’Reilly misunderstands my position and seems to imply as if I were saying that the PCE alone is the Word of God and nothing else. Actually, I am saying that only out of editions, there is one perfect Edition.

But because Mr O’Reilly doesn’t understand that, he doesn’t seem to have a perfect, exact or final edition, but his arms are wide and he accepts a group of editions without drilling down to where there are important differences in them.

His view is that the differences between the PCE and say that Concord, or the 1769, are “actually minuscule with no effect on meaning.” Remember he is looking at the 12 tests of the PCE here, so they are not the lists I have made showing notable differences between the Concord and the PCE.

According to Mr O’Reilly, the difference between “spirit” and “Spirit” in Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8 are apparently no problem to him, bizarrely, he says, “both readings are correct because each of those scriptures refers to a Spirit-filled man”. While it is true that these verses are referring to people with the Spirit, what is distinct is that the use of the lower case “spirit” tells us it is the Spirit’s knowledge in the human, which information you don’t get if you have just “Spirit”.

Is Mr O’Reilly really going to suggest that we need to know both editions on this point, because he is implying you need both renderings to get the full information, and such a view is both ridiculous and the very same approach as modernists.

No, what we would need is a perfect presentation of a perfect Book which exclusively shows the truth, which is what the PCE does for us. We see “spirit” and that is the information we need. The contradictory or differing information of “Spirit” is confusion and implies that there is no “one word from God” or one to the letter reliable edition.

But Mr O’Reilly calls the PCE view “fraudulent”. Why? Because of some other unrelated accusation. Apparently “PCE onlyists like Verschuur are no different from other Nicolaitans … trying to lord themselves over ‘the body of Christ’”. That’s a wild accusation of course, that comes completely out of left field.

So now the argument is not about why “spirit” is correct (true), or why “spirit” and “Spirit” are both correct (false), but rather an entirely different view, that somehow a boogey-man like me is saying you can only use one edition as everything else is not right (false!). The fact is I am not saying that and I have even said things to such opposite effect as “the Vulgate is the word of God for people who only know Latin”! So then, one questions why I am such an apparently bad person.

Maybe Mr O’Reilly feels lorded over that the PCE is a correct edition (which of course he willingly won’t admit) but doesn’t like the messenger. So then he has to communistically keep his arms wide and say all editions are right.

Well, it does get that nonsensical. Listen to his ultimate schizophrenic thinking:

“This writer’s view is that the differences listed … are less significant than ‘ye’ Jeremiah 34:16, Cambridge editions and ‘he’ Jeremiah 34:16, Oxford editions. Dr Ruckman has shown that both readings are correct and, as indicated, the supposed difference is ‘a thing of nought.’”

No, “ye” and “he” are two different words with two different meanings. There is no way possible that these two words are both right or mean the same thing, or don’t matter, or is a nothing… if jots and tittles matter, and they do, then a “ye” and a “he” difference must be resolved.

He says, concerning “and” or “or” in Joshua 19:2 that “The variant readings are both correct.” Anyone knows that “and” and “or” are two different logical parameters! They do not mean that same thing, they do not express the same meaning.

He says, concerning the difference at 2 Chronicles 33:19, “The variant readings are both correct.” Variant? If variant, varying from what standard? How can a variation be correct? It has to be one or the other, not both.

Even though “farther” or “further” are two different words, which has been shown from the Oxford English Dictionary itself, he claims they “are interchangeable. The variant readings are both correct.”

He says that when comparing the Oxford with the Cambridge that whether it is “son of David” or “Son of David” apparently it doesn’t matter, “the difference is inconsequential” …

That is all opinion, that is just arbitrarily saying two things are both correct when two different things are not the same!

With his re-definition of my beliefs and his label of “PCE onlyism” he says, “The above notwithstanding, given the potential discouragement to genuine Bible believers that PCE onlyism could cause, it is wise to apply Song of Solomon 2:15 ‘Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.’”

Let us weigh the matter properly. We need to have an exact knowledge of the very words of God. We cannot say that variations are equally true. One word is not the same as another.

Therefore this pathetic attempt to summon the hounds to destroy the little foxes is an utterly ridiculous analogy.

And “Nicolaitans” is the PCE spelling, the standard, unsurprisingly Mr O’ Reilly didn’t use the 1769 and Oxford spelling “Nicolaitanes”. That’s because there really is a standard Edition, and it also seems that God has supplied Mr O’Reilly a Cameo to use.

Editorial, General, Review

KJB words not dying: Mark Ward countered

UPDATE. After this article was published, I was contacted by the King James Bible onlyist Mark Ward mentioned, who gave me an account of his conversation with Mark Ward, and explained his views, which differed significantly to how Mark Ward reported the conversation. I have therefore edited this article to reflect this further information.

In a propaganda piece (a youtube video dated 26/1/24), Mark Ward openly argues and states that the King James Bible is maybe 5 to 8% unintelligible. He shows that this number is not strictly the case, but gives the general impression that the King James Bible is to some degree, apparently, containing misunderstood, obsolete, dead and unintelligible words.

To bolster his propaganda, and to justify his “ministry”, he speaks about some dialogue he had with a certain King James Bible onlyist, though Ward misrepresents him as being a “Textus Receptus onlyist” for propaganda reasons.

(And, with his mildly entertaining manner, semi-professional videography and dorky attempt at nerdiness, his propaganda should be considered dangerous.)

The way Mark Ward presents it, naïve TROs are buying into his propaganda. The potential for this to be the case induces us to sound an alarm.

Mark Ward reported that he had a discussion with this King James Bible-supporting young person about their views on the eventual alleged need to edit, update or retranslate the KJB. Remember, Mark Ward already thinks the KJB is maybe 5% misunderstood, so with a purely naturalistic view of the world, one day apparently the KJB will need to be changed.

Mark Ward is taking on a kind of a role of being a “prophet” by estimating the change will be needed at some point, it would seem the thinking is maybe in 150 years, but who knows with these people, they’d probably be saying it should be a lot sooner.

The KJB will never be unintelligible, it is inconceivable that it would be, and there will not be any need for an update/change in so many hundreds of years.

According to Mark Ward’s account, he then says that his strawman “TRO” was volunteering to even change the KJB himself, if it was even allegedly so many percent “unintelligible”, though laughably knew no Hebrew or Greek, and would use Strongs Concordance (the lexicon part) to do the work.

It seems however that Mark Ward’s account of this conversation differs significantly to what the King James Bible supporter says he actually said.

As to some amateurish attempt to update the KJB, anyone who understands about this area will know that Strongs is completely subjective. If Strongs suggests a meaning for a Hebrew or Greek word, that meaning is as good (i.e. as poor as) a modern translation. Strongs’ work is often in conflict with the KJB, and since Strong himself was influenced by modernism, it is obvious that using his definitions would be inaccurate anyway.

Further, if English is allegedly changing, in this fictional hypothesis that the KJB’s wording is becoming harder to understand by the year, wouldn’t that mean that the English used in Strongs would be equally out of date?

Any supporter of the King James Bible who thinks that the KJB to be somewhat (5%) unintelligible, or will become so one day in so many decades, is wrong. This is because there simply are no “dead words”, “obsolete words” or any percentage of “unintelligible” words in the KJB.

I mean, we know that there are religious concepts that need to be taught, that there are hard and dark teachings in the Bible, but this is different to the concept that the actual language of the KJB is dying. The KJB’s words are NOT dying.

This is because the KJB’s English, which is Biblical English, is like a special religious language. This religious English is special as it is used to describe concepts, which are doctrines. Therefore, any doctrine, say “propitiation” or “sanctification”, is itself also relying on the fact that certain concepts are attached to certain English words. And the entirety of the KJB with its “ands” and punctuation marks (jots and tittles too) should be approached like this, as if it is a sacred language, a special language, because it is: it was designed by Providence to convey the very accurate truths of the Scripture to the whole world in the last days.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” (Hebrews 4:12a).

Preservation is not just in transmission of the Scripture from the past to the present, but is keeping it in the present.

You see, English is not a product of accidents, nor is its future mere random chaos.

Mark Ward used to say, “Usage determines meaning”. Such a view was the very opposite of a (Platonic) Christian presuppositional view that in fact God predetermined words, concepts, meanings. Instead, Mark Ward aligned to the opposite view, that (ultimately) the King James Bible is just a product of its times and the naturalistic tides of deistic history. God apparently was not guiding English, nor the passage of the Scripture to the world via English, nor raising up the succession of Reformers, Puritans, Evangelicals and today’s pygmies who stand on giants’ shoulders.

Mark Ward’s evolutionary view of language seems no different to the evolutionary/atheistic view of languages. But he has noticeably quietened on that front.

Instead, we believe that the English-using people, the success of English-speaking nations and the destiny of the English language with the gospel for the world is all designed by God. We are living in a providential continuum. (What a privilege it is to understand this and to cooperate with God’s Spirit, yet on the other hand, what a terror it is that the sword now dangles so precipitously over the likes of Mark Ward!)

Here are several reasons why the KJB is fully intelligible, and why it will be so into the future.

First, the Oxford English Dictionary people said, as long as someone knows a word, its meaning and use, it is not dead. “Our own words never become obsolete … Even after we cease to use a word, the memory of it survives, and the word itself survives as a possibility; it is only when no one is left to whom its use is still possible, that the word is wholly dead … They are alive to some speakers, and dead to others”.

Now, as long as the KJB is being used, and its words known, then no word in it can be called “archaic”, “obsolete”, “dead”, etc. As the fact is, the KJB is in widespread and current use, and exists all around the place.

Someone could point the OED itself and say that is lists this or that word in the KJB as “obsolete” etc., but such labelling is itself incorrect. The OED is not infallible, it is not comprehensive, it is not a religious text and it is not strictly speaking the dictionary of Biblical English.

So then, this “Biblical English” differs to, yet remains conversant with, English.

There are KJB words out there all over the internet, and used in plenty of churches, so therefore no word’s meaning in the KJB is being lost, nor have they been lost.

To charge the KJB as being the repository of a growing list of “dead” words (i.e. unintelligible words) is wrong.

Another reason why the KJB is not dying is because of the role of the Holy Ghost, and teachers in the church, and the whole heritage of prior learning (library/internet), which is that we may learn and be taught words, concepts, meaning and knowledge, so again, no word KJB word is obsolete, lost, dead and/or unintelligible, nor will they be.

Importantly, the KJB was made in line with modern English, and the very print history KJB reflects the stabilising of English, to our present day. English, due to its global position, proliferation and its connection with technology, is ensuring that English in the bigger sense is not varying, evolving or dialectising to the point of incompatibility with the KJB. Instead, the global rise and diverse sectors where English is being used are providential factors keeping English within the aegis of God’s divine English in the KJB. (As language serves God, then English is servant to the Word of God.)

So English is being kept in a stable place, meaning that the words of the KJB are still relevant and intelligible. God is in control, and it is ironic that a Reformed guy like Mark Ward does not have a view about God’s special care and sovereignty guiding English and the KJB, instead, his view seems to be linked to a naturalistic view of language “evolution” that atheists and infidels teach.

As for the hypothetical “TRO” that Mark Ward boasted about, they both would do well to read Edward Hills’ books and extend that logic in such a way as I have outlined. (As for the real person Mark Ward dialogued with, I suspect that Mark Ward misrepresented him for his own ends.)

“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zephaniah 3:9).

Editorial, General

The word “besom” should not be replaced

In the King James Bible, we find the word “besom”. This is an example enemies of the KJB point to trying to make out the KJB is hard to understand and using old fashioned language. They say that word should be changed to “broom”. But is that right?

Getting rid of a specific word like “besom” is in fact an assault on the sacred language of the Scripture, it is an assault on the exact meaning of words and it is an assault on a good tradition that we have had for years.

Continue reading →
Editorial, General, Review

Pure Cambridge Edition not debunked, despite the opinion of a tiny handful

Someone made a video attempting to debunk the Pure Cambridge Edition. They and commenters underneath the video on youtube made the following statements.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

All these claims are answerable, refutable and really they are wrong claims.

Here are the answers.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

ANSWER ONE. The King James Bible as a version and a translation is pure, so obviously all editions of that version and translation are pure, because all editions have the same text and translation! The person here is mixing up the concept of editorial purity with textual and translational purity. Editorial purity is about having no typographical errors and having standard spellings, etc.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

ANSWER TWO. The person here is really objecting to the idea that one spelling is insisted upon, when places like this have had variations within the history of the KJB. Some editions have “Gaba” at Nehemiah 7:30, others have “Geba”. Also, in 1626 a London edition had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, and so did a 1750 London edition. Going to the Hebrew to look at these places is subjective (which Hebrew anyway?). And since editorial work includes regularisation, this is the likely reason why both Ezra and Nehemiah have “Geba”. See also http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4&p=4

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

ANSWER THREE. I’ve never claimed that either the making of the KJB nor its editing was done by inspiration. And like the maker of the video, I agree that words in italics are inspired words, but I’ve never said that the italics were placed by inspiration. I do, of course, think that the italics as we now have them are rightly placed in that font style.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

ANSWER FOUR. The italics of 1611 have been edited over the years. But attacking 1 John 2:23’s italics would be to attack Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition and many others. The fact is that the italics have been improved after 1611, which exhibited various editorial issues and mistakes in places, so of course we should understand that many editions to this day match 1769 and the PCE at this place.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

ANSWER FIVE. The word “and” editorially belongs in Exodus 23:23, it was there in 1612, 1616 and the 1629, it was there in italics in Cambridge’s editions from the 1830s. Various other editions did not have the word “and” there, it is true, but using the Hebrew to prove anything about this is misguided. Instead, we should trust that the word “and” is an implied sense in the Hebrew, and that’s why it is there in English, in italics. The PCE is not wrong, nor are other historical editions, to have this.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

ANSWER SIX. It is true that CUP has not used the wording “PCE” nor did it actually create the electronic documents on the bibleprotector website, BUT there were printings of the Bible with the word “Cambridge” on them, in Pica Antiqua (quarto), Turquoise 8vo, (New) Brevier 8vo, (Pitt) Minion, Cameo 16mo, Sapphire 16mo, Ruby 24mo and Ruby Amethyst — printed from around the late 1920s to 1985 — and these printings all had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, “and” (in italics) “the Hivites” at Exodus 23:23, “spirit” lower case at Acts 11:12; 11:28 and 1 John 5:8, etc. — and bearing the printer’s names of Walter Lewis and Brooke Crutchley. Do Cambridge University Press deny the existence of their own work? What were they changing in 1985 when they stated that they were changing 1 John 5:8 to “Spirit”? And while I said from the late 1920s, in fact, there are Cambridge Bibles from the World War One era that are almost PCEs, except for a few places, like having “spirit” when it should be “Spirit” at Mark 1:12. At some point under Walter Lewis those changes were made, leading to decades of an Edition that Cambridge should go back to printing today in all its offerings.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

ANSWER SEVEN. The word “spirit” was lower case in Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28 in 1769, before 1769, after 1769, in Cambridge printings through much of the 20th century before I was ever born, so obviously my Pentecostal “biases” had nothing to with that. Furthermore, there are many verses in all editions of the KJB that have the word “spirit” relating to the work of God and it is obviously nothing to do with to do with Pentecostalism or biases. This is just how many historical editions of the KJB read.

The fact is that I don’t invoke any specific Pentecostal doctrine or necessitate some Pentecostal practice to be able to know and understand why the word “spirit” has been used in certain places throughout the KJB. And seeing as jots and tittles matter (jot and tittle are English words in the English dictionary that have English definitions) then it follows that the capital or lower case in God’s word is important, and that the PCE is presenting an editorial accurate form of the KJB.

Of course the Holy Ghost is directly involved when the word “spirit” is used in lower case in these examples, though it is about His effects and knowledge in the human heart. For a good overview read this short article: http://www.bibleprotector.com/blog/?p=957

IN CONCLUSION the PCE and its history have not been debunked, and the opinions of a small handful who are trying to say something is just mistaken. The PCE is a valid edition of the KJB, and the PCE is an accurate, acceptable and proper standard to represent the KJB now and into the future.

Editorial, General

Why is lower case “s” on “spirit” right?

1 Comment

The question is asked, “Why is having a lower case ‘s’ on the word ‘spirit’ right at 1 John 5:8 (and Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28)?

Here’s an answer I gave someone on a comment on a youtube video:

There’s a lot of info on my bibleprotector website about this, but there is a distinction between the person of the Holy Ghost and His outworking/function/effect particularly in human knowledge.

For example, in Joel it says God will pour out “my spirit” but in Acts 2 Peter says “of my Spirit”. Thus, “spirit” is of the “Spirit”.

Notice also 1 Cor. 2:12, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” And again, Prov. 1:23, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

Simply, if you look at this use of “spirit” as received knowledge from the Holy Ghost, you would get how it is being used, like Exodus 31:3 “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”.

Importantly, the capital and lower case distinction is there before and in Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition etc. With this understanding in mind, you can then see how it was and is rightly “spirit” lower case at: Acts 11:12; Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8.

The Oxfords in the late 19th century changed from Dr Blayney’s “spirit” to “Spirit” in some places, and when the Concord Cambridge was made in the 1950s, it too followed Oxford. Then from 1985 Cambridge changed normal editions at 1 John 5:8 and in the coming years beyond that silently changed the places at Acts as well. In fact, by the year 2000 some of its new Bibles available for sale still had “spirit” lower case at (at least one of) the Acts places.

Then, an article was written in the Trinitarian Bible Society’s April 2013 magazine, they said that they were going to review all of the places throughout the KJB that ALL editions still rightly had lower case “spirit”, such as at, Genesis 6:3, Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 35:31, Numbers 11:29, Numbers 24:2, 27:18, Nehemiah 9:20, 30, Job 26:13, 27:3, Psalm 51:11, 12, 104:30, 106:33, 139:7, Psalm 143:10, Proverbs 1:23, Isaiah 4:4, 11:2, 34:16, 40:7, 42:1, 44:3, 59:21, Ezekiel 36:27, 37:1, 27:14, 39:29, Joel 2:28, 29, Micah 2:7, 3:8, Zechariah 4:6, 7:12, John 4:23, 6:63, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 8, 12:18, Philippians 1:27, 3:3, 1 Peter 4:6, 14, 1 John 4:6 etc.

I don’t know what exactly played out, but I would hope they would come back to their roots and to the proper and distinct usage, as was present with Dr Blayney in 1769 and the 20th century Cambridge tradition (i.e. the Pure Cambridge Edition), with the standard use of “spirit” at the places I mentioned.

In short, there are plenty of examples where the word “spirit” is used, and spirit is directly connected with the Holy Ghost, it is His effect and impartation that comes into our soul/understanding. Of course other uses of the word “spirit” include the spiritual realm and of course human, angelic and evil spirits. When “Spirit” is used, obviously that means the Holy Ghost.

Finally, in Romans 8 it says in verse 6 to be “spiritually minded” yet the chapter is talking about the Holy Ghost, and so I want to make it clear that the word “spirit” at places like 1 John 5:8 is not a rejection of the Holy Ghost, but is completely based on Him. Particular knowledge is from God.

Editorial, General, Review

We have gone beyond 1769

With an array of issues in 1769, like “Beer-sheba, Sheba” in Joshua 19:2, or missing out on part of a verse in Revelation 18:22, we are grateful we have a better edition that gets everything right, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition.

We don’t use a 1769. No one does. Well, unless you’d use these ones. But you shouldn’t, you should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Here are two examples of a 1769 Folio:

https://archive.org/details/kjv-1769-oxford-edition-full-bible/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/kjv-1769-1772-blayney-folio/mode/2up

Editorial

King James Bible believers need come to another level of academia

I have seen the need among KJBO to come to another level of academia. There are also dangers with that, because modernist infidelity is everywhere.

With Oxford now making the Bodleian 1602 MS available, we see Tim Berg and his friends now looking at it. I must give a shout out to Bryan Ross and Christopher Yetzer, who are among the few who have been looking at this matter.

At the same time that Tim Berg has been talking about the Bod 1602 MS, Steven Anderson arbitrarily said that the KJB had a persistent typographical error. This has directly led to Mark Ward discussing the Bod 1602 MS, and is leading back to this point: Do we rely on almost 400 years of editing in the KJB as we have it, or are we going to turn back to the Bod 1602 MS, like modernist editor David Norton?

I believe in the Providence of God, that the editing of the KJB, the detection and eliminating of typographical errors is complete, and that we do not need to turn back to any old annotated document to change anything in the KJB as it now stands.

The words, spelling, the punctuation are now fixed, and we don’t need and will not allow any new alterations or corruptions under the guise of “editorial revision”, “discoveries” or so-called “modern scholarship”.

KJBOs say that the influence of academia has been a problem for Bible-believing churches. We recognise that we must reason spiritually and Biblically, not merely on subjective history, rationalism and empiricism, etc.

So a KJBO would ask me to explain why do we need to go to another level of academia? (What’s the assumption here? It is that academia = worldly error.)

It’s a good question, I am only too happy to answer it. When I got involved with KJB discussions online back in 2007 (and having read everything I could from the internet on the subject to that time), I knew there wasn’t the academic rigour from Ruckman, Waite or Riplinger, etc. like what was needed. They made good points, but they all had issues.

KJBO had a lot of holler but not so much book learning (although there were some names like Hills, Holland and Vance). I knew that the movement had to go to a higher level, because anti-KJBO were able to run rings around KJBOs. In fact, most anti-KJBOs today, like J. Burris, T. Berg, M. Ward, etc. are all former KJBOs. But because KJBO believed things like kinda double inspiration, “Antioch stream” and that both “he” and “she” were both correct in 1611 in Ruth 3:15, and other such ideas, once they were shown the errors of those things, they would naturally reject all KJBO. (There are other factors too, around IFB versus Reformed, but that’s another issue.)

When I first tried to find answers around why there were word differences in present King James Bible editions, there was very little info. People were fighting about textual criticism and translation methods, but were not so much knowing about the history of the KJB itself. I read Scrivener, I corresponded with David Norton and read “secular” histories.

When Rick Norris would make some accusation about some word that had been edited in the KJB, I found there were very few that could deal with him, like Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Brandon Staggs, etc. But in the main, Norris, like a fore-runner to Mark Ward, was really quite effective in putting doubts in people’s minds about the KJB.

So what do I mean academic? I mean the fact that it was the KJB men who were the crowning glory of the educational institutions in their day. I mean that it was our people who edited the KJB like Joseph Mede. By academic I don’t mean merely using citations and quoting people in context, and that latter point is a given.

I am advocating for the high heritage. It is very easy to think that the modern scholars and secular studies now rule, but they are both and all usurpers from us. I say just because it appears the enemy dominates the academic field like a flood, we should not reject true scholarship.

Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLfPWY1WEx4

Editorial

Anderson, Ward and the truth

I received an email stating that King James Bible supporter Steven Anderson, who has a rather bad reputation in the USA, has come out and said that the KJB has an error in it.

“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:” (Deut. 21:22).

Apparently his going to the Hebrew has led him to reject the words “to be”. (As if the KJB men didn’t translate properly or typographical mistake persisted in the KJB for over 400 years!)

The great enemy of the King James Bible’s perfection, Mark Ward, has come out with a video, explaining why he thinks Steven Anderson is wrong, and why the words in the KJB are right.

We don’t need Mark Ward “helping” people when much of the time he is hindering people.

So, let’s get this straight from a believing perspective:

Most importantly, the entire history of the KJB that has “he be to be”, so it is not a recent edition which has made a change, or some printing error which has arisen. It is not an edition issue, but something which belongs in the entire history of the KJB.

Often people go to the Hebrew, go to the Geneva and the Bishops’ and consult Webster’s dictionary, Gill’s and other commentaries, etc. But that is not our method here.

Let’s look at the plain language, grammar and logical progression in the passage itself.

It is obvious in Deuteronomy here, that the judicial process is where someone is found and declared to be put to death, and that that’s clearly what the KJB is saying.

Here is the sequence:
1. A man does the deed,
2. He is found guilty and sentenced (i.e. he be to be executed), and
3. He is hanged

And all of that takes place in the past tense, because the actual context is about the body now hanging on a tree, that it doesn’t remain strung up, because that’s the actual point of the passage, which is in verse 23. The passage is written from the perspective of what happened leading to the body being hung.

So then, talking about the present corpse, in the past tense:

1. the “man have committed a sin worthy of death”

2. the judging process declares that “he be to be put to death”

3. and then the executioner “hang him on a tree” …

“His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deut. 21:23).

Which of course explains this:

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” (Galatians 3:13).

The English is plain and clear, Steven Anderson would be wrong to think there is anything wrong in the KJB, it is not a typo. It is, in fact, good and proper grammar.

As for Mark Ward, one must wonder at his real motives, is it to rejoice at Steven Anderson’s error? Is it yet another opportunity for him to make some backhanded comments about those who allegedly make mistakes with the KJB’s perfect grammar and vocabulary?

With Mark Ward not having the KJB as his final authority, there’s every chance he will contort to accept that Steven Anderson’s opening the door to change the KJB is possible and legitimate.

UPDATE:

You can find the usage “he be to be” used out there, for example, in old books here: https://archive.org/search?query=%22he+be+to+be%22&sin=TXT

Mark Ward’s video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vphp-bJn9GE&t

SECOND UPDATE:

Steven Anderson answered Mark Ward’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPcWH20v648

Which has led to Mark Ward retracting part of what he said and altering his opinion in a new video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GC18_o5zs

There is a whole side issue being discussed as well, which is about whether a person is dead before the corpse is hung. From a New Testament perspective, we know actually that Jesus died while being hung on cross, however it seems usual that in the Old Testament people were stoned before being hung. But to make some sort of theology that Deuteronomy 21:22 was saying people cannot be killed by hanging because of “the Hebrew” is nonsense.

Editorial, General

Amminadib

An examination of the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible on the specific issue of the word Amminadib in Song of Solomon 6:12, by Matthew Verschuur.

INTRODUCTION

Along with the case of the spelling of “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 in the Pure Cambridge Edition against most other editions, is the issue of the word “Amminadib” in Song of Solomon (Canticles) 6:12, for its obscurity and minuteness.

If we can argue that the Pure Cambridge Edition is right in every other place, then we can argue that it is right in this one also.

Again, if we can argue that Providence has supplied the Pure Cambridge Bible as it is (as presented on the Bible Protector website, bibleprotector.com, no less), then we should trust that God has got the truth to us.

And again, the same Holy Ghost who inspired, the same Holy Ghost who preserved is the same Holy Ghost who is at hand today witnessing and attesting, showing and revealing, yea, interpreting and bringing to heart the knowledge of the certainty that even in this very precise particular, the very letters and marks in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible, as we have it in full verity, is correct.

THE PLACE ITSELF

We now step forward, to the passage itself:

12 Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.

(Song of Solomon 6:12).

This book is part of the poetic interrelation between the lover and the beloved, which is both the story of Solomon and the Shulamite, and also is said to be a picture of Christ and the Church.

In the narrative, the lover goes to the where the nuts and fruits grow, and then describes the feeling of his soul, saying his soul was like the chariots of Amminadib. We can understand the driving force of chariots, the powerful feeling of them.

The commentators, pre-1611 translations and the margin offers us meanings. There are primarily two, the first is that there was a person called Amminadib who was renowned for driving chariots, the second is that the chariots were of a class or category of being princely/noble or willing. Those who dive into the words and their meanings say that there are two Hebrew words, being “Ammi” (my people) and “nadib” (willing).

There is no problem to suggest that the word Amminadib might mean “my willing people”, but that cannot be derived from Scripture so easily.

Instead, we have to ask the more pertinent question as to why this word is presented to us as a Hebraic-cum-English proper noun, a name, and not “translated”, as is done in many other Bible translations.

From this we can conclude that the translators themselves, and the Holy Ghost, intended for us to know that this is a proper name, and that the pertinent information is not in what the rabbis say “Amminadib” means, but what our English teachers, Providence and the Spirit says/shows it to mean.

Very clearly, the chariots are not just chariots, they are qualified into some special class, they are not just chariots, they are Amminadib chariots, and what class that is, we can understand from the context, must be the best sorts, an elite or special class.

The next verse speaks of armies, so we know the chariots are not some jerry-rigged rickshaw contraptions.

THE GRAMMATICAL SITUATION

The word Amminadib, we are told, is made up of two components from Hebrew. We also have another word, which is very similar, which is found multiple times in the Bible, which is Amminadab and Aminadab.

If we use the 1611 King James Bible line brakes as a guide, where the word is hyphenated in such cases, we observe the brake on Ammi-, in Song of Solomon 6:12, and with Amminabab at 1 Chronicles 15:10.

Now, while in 1 Chron. 15:10 we see “Ammi-“, we see the whole word in the next verse.

The issue is that in Bibles, lets say some examples from the late 19th century, the word “Ammi-dabib” is made a compound name thus, but Amminabab is not presented in its places as a compound name.

In the Pure Cambridge Edition we can find those copies which have “Ammi-dabib” and those which do not have a compound, being “Amminadib”.

There are four examples. The first are some early PCEs, which have “Ammi-dabib”. The second are the pronouncing editions, which have “Amminadib”. The third are the clear editions, which have all the pronouncing words listed in the front, and then have the text at that place read “Amminadib”, and the fourth are Collins editions, which are all pronouncing as well, with “Amminadib”.

PRONUNCIATION

While it is listed in commentaries, etc., that the word components are “Ammi-“ and “Nadib”, and we find the pronunciation markings, and that in theological circles, the pronunciation consistently is the same as the Redpath markings in the Collins and Cambridge Bibles, which is like “Ammin’adib” not “Ammi’nadib”.

Even though the first 1611 Edition broke both “Amminadab” and “Amminadib” when at the end of the line at “Ammi”, that is not how it is pronounced by any known source.

THE QUESTION

Some Pure Cambridge Editions have “Ammi-nadib” compounded, and others (primarily pronouncing editions) do not compound the word. Examples of non-pronouncing editions with no hyphen or compound dash exist. There are other contemporary editions to the PCE, like the Cambridge Concord and the London Edition, which also do not compound the word at that place.

The standard representation, which is a critical and precisely correct representation, of the Pure Cambridge Edition is the text files supplied by Bible Protector on the bibleprotector.com website, which does not hyphenate or compound the word “Amminadib” at Song of Solomon 6:12.

Remembering that this a minor variation that exists within the Pure Cambridge Edition printed tradition, it is not a situation where such a Bible is “invalidated”, but indeed such printed editions are used Bible Protector’s chief man Matthew Verschuur and at the church he attends. However, the official, proper text is that on the website, and many of the ordinary every day printed PCE KJBs in use from Collins, Cambridge, Holman and Church Bible Publishers all do not compound, hyphenate or break the word after “Ammi”.

A CHRONOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

The Geneva, and more importantly, Bishops’ translation, which was used as a basis for making the King James Bible, did not have the word “Amminadib” at all, but had translated it various ways, much like the margin of the KJB has it.

In 1611, we find the word at the end of a line, so on that basis we cannot assert whether it is a compound name hyphen at all, and if examining the close word “Amminadab”, one could easily infer no compounding, it was just treated as one word.

In November 2023, when this is written, numerous scans of early KJB editions became available online, which were not available for previous examinations on this topic. Here we find at Song of Sol. 6:12:

Barker (London) 1612 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1613 “Amminadib” blackletter (end of line break)

Barker (London) 1617 “Amminadib” (no break)

Norton and Bill (London) 1618 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1618 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1619 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1621 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1622 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1626 “Amminadib” smaller size (no break)

Barker (London) 1626 “Amminadib” larger size (no break)

Norton and Bill (London) 1628 “Amminadib” (no break)

Bill, Hills and Newcombe (London) 1628 “Amminadib” very different setup with clear roman typeface (end of line break)

Missing front page 1929 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker and Bill (London) 1630 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1631 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1631 “Amminadib” different size (no break)

Barker (London) 1631 “Amminadib” another one (no break)

Missing front page 1631 “Amminadib” (no break)

Thomas and John Buck (Cambridge) 1631 “Ammi-nadib” blackletter (has the break)

Barker (London) 1634 “Amminadib” (no break)

Barker (London) 1634 “Ammi-nadib” blackletter (has the break)

Source: https://archive.org/search?query=holy+bible&page=2&and%5B%5D=year%3A%5B1607+TO+1639%5D

As the Cambridge edition of 1637, and the edit of 1638, had “Ammi-nadib”, we can conjecture that the first Cambridge edition of 1628 and the edit of 1629 pioneered this pattern.

We can conclude on the basis of the 1612, etc., that the end of line break of “Ammi-“ in the blackletter editions was never intended to be a compound name, but that was introduced probably in 1629, as it was certainly there in the Cambridge of 1631 and 37 which are online, and 1638 as is stored in the State Library of Victoria.

Thus we may safely and certainly say that the 1611 Editions and the 1613 Edition would be for the non-compounding of the name.

The name was compounded from the Cambridge Edition of 1629 and that of 1638, through to the 1769 Edition. We now leap forward to the late 19th century, where most editions were compounding the name, as the were directly influenced by the 1769, and yet we find that the PCEs from Cambridge and Collins, which had H. A. Redpath’s pronunciation scheme, did not hyphenate or compound. Neither did the London Edition of the 1950s, nor the Cambridge Concord Edition.

What is interesting is that while early editions would break the word at the end of a line at “Ammi”, there is an Oxford edition, probably from the 1950s, which breaks “Amminadab” at Numbers 10:14 at the end of a column “Ammin-adab”, which is similar to the word in question, which is compounded in that Oxford edition, as “Ammi-nadib”.

CONCLUSION

We can therefore conclude that if an editor was forced to choose the safest course, that he should not hyphenate at all, but have “Amminadib”, and that the evidence is in line with the PCE having no hyphen or dash there.

The fact that some editions of the PCE do have a hyphen there is not a reason to doubt the Bible Protector work, but on the contrary, the Bible Protector work is indicating what is plainly printed in 1612 and other Barker editions, which in turn indicate that the end of line hyphen in 1611 and 1613 was just that, and not a compound word.

The pure word is pure, and it is right, correct and precise to the very jot and tittle.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

(Matthew 5:18).