Purifications vindicated
Posted: 27 May 2014, 17:32The King James Bible has not been changed in underlying text or translation, but has undergone a purification since 1611 to the Pure Cambridge Edition, especially in regards to eliminating typesetting mistakes and standardising the langauge. Here are some examples:
1. Shamefacedness
Norton reports that “shamefacedness” in the present King James Bible must be an error, because the word “shamefastness” appears in 1611. This argument has been taken up by some anti-King James Bible only people. Norton claims, “More drastically, for the change is arguably a change of word and meaning”. (Norton, A Textual History, Cambridge, page 100).
The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that “shamefacedness” is a standardised spelling of “shamefastness”, and although the spelling “shamefacedness” appeared in 1555, the divergence in meaning did come about until later. The Oxford English Dictionary gives far more lengthy definitions for “shamefastness”, which includes “a feeling of shame”.
We can be certain that the meaning of “shamefacedness” was meant in 1611, because Paul was not commanding Christian women to feel ashamed, only that they should be modest and bashful in their manner. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (1 Timothy 2:9).
We can be sure that due to the process of purification that has taken place in the printing of the King James Bible, that the correct word with the correct spelling is now presented, indicating what was the meaning in 1611, and what we know is the meaning today.
2. Among and amongst
There are a number of instances where the 1611 word “amongst” is changed to “among”. But, in two places, that is, in Genesis 3:8 and 23:9, the 1611 word “amongst” is retained. The modernist believes that the editors were careless and the differences meaningless, but in fact, the use of any single word is exact.
The rule must be established that the Pure Cambridge Edition is always right, and that every rule that can now be ascertained, is made from describing pre-existing phenomena. However, even if the primary rule is not regarded, so as to make an investigation neutral, it can be discovered that the Pure Cambridge Edition will always adhere to a proper and detailed use of the English language, and that there will be a consistent pattern and usage.
The Oxford English Dictionary highlights a difference in meaning, that “amongst” especially applies to the use of “among”, “generally implying dispersion, intermixture or shifting position.” The first verse in which “amongst” appears says, “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8).
In every verse of the Bible where the words “among the trees” appear, the description is of a particular object viewed as stationary “among” the trees. Whereas, Adam and Eve, being two, both hid themselves, and were, as the Oxford English Dictionary informs, in “dispersion” and “shifting position”, that is to say, were not stationary, but moved throughout the trees in multiple hiding places. Thus, the elimination of the supposedly archaic “amongst” in this place would actually be a loss of vital information. Whereas, in the many other cases where “amongst” has gone, they would have actually conveyed nonsensical or incorrect details, if they were left as “amongst”. While some might accuse this of being “the devil in the detail”, it is, in fact, “the divinity in the detail”.
The other example of “amongst” is, “That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is worth he shall give it me for a possession of a buryingplace amongst you.” (Genesis 23:9). Abraham wished to bury his dead in a place where the Hittites had already buried their dead, thus, the remains of Abraham’s people should have been, as the Oxford English Dictionary informs, “intermixture”, that is to say, the burying would be intermixed with the other dead already in that place.
The word “amongst” is a word which describes the relation of an action, a verb, to a noun, which makes “amongst” in grammatical terms an adverbial genitive. For example, that it was Adam and Eve [nouns] hiding [verb] themselves [pronoun] “amongst” the trees, without reference to whether it was God [noun] walking [verb] “among” the trees. Or again, that it was Abraham [noun] burying [verb] (at that) place [noun] “amongst” the Hittites, without reference to whether it was Ephron [noun] giving [verb] possession “among” the audience of the Hittites.
3. Toward and towards
Since the word form “towards” no longer appears, there cannot be anything to consider concerning the modernist argument in this particular; namely, that the meaning and representation of that word is always that of “toward” without a doubt.
4. Beside and besides
The Oxford English Dictionary shows that “besides” has all the meanings of “beside”, except that “besides” specifically means “in addition, over and above, as well”, “Introducing a further consideration: As an additional or further matter, moreover, further” and meaning “Other than mentioned, otherwise, else”.
Therefore, the cases in which “besides” appears, must relate to the specific meaning as laid out above, “And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place” (Genesis 19:12). This case can easily be substituted for the words “in addition”. The case is even clearer where mathematics is actually used: “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six” (Genesis 46:26).
The same case can be made for the other verses which contain “besides”, and which conveys a specific concept, which information would otherwise be absent from the English Bible. Thus, when Paul said, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.” (1 Corinthians 1:16), it relates to a numerical accounting of how many Paul baptised, or again, Paul uses numerical and quantitative terms, “I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.” (Philemon 1:19).
Scrivener had a special tirade about the use of “beside” and “besides”, and yet it is so clear that there are distinct and proper meanings to these words, that it is even more amazing that there has been so little overt rejection of Scrivener’s poor and blind scholarship in this regard, though the general and tacit historical rejection of his work is plain enough.
5. Sith and since
Scrivener brings the marginal notes and the Apocrypha as evidence against the changes of “sith” to “since”; however, both the marginal notes and the Apocrypha are not to be considered as being “purified” in the sense of the actual text; though, the editorial work on these things can be seen to produce an agreeable and standardised text.
The 1611 “sith” has been changed to “since” in Jeremiah 15:7 and 23:38, while it is retained in Ezekiel 35:6. The use of the word “since” is common and has a range of meanings. “And I will fan them with a fan in the gates of the land; I will bereave them of children, I will destroy my people, since they return not from their ways.” (Jeremiah 15:7). “But since ye say, The burden of the LORD; therefore thus saith the LORD; Because ye say this word, The burden of the LORD, and I have sent unto you, saying, Ye shall not say, The burden of the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:38).
The Oxford English Dictionary shows that “sith” was “used to express cause, while since was restricted to time”.4 It can be seen in this light, that Ezekiel 35:6 relates to cause and not to time, “Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will prepare thee unto blood, and blood shall pursue thee: sith thou hast not hated blood, even blood shall pursue thee.” The words “since thou hast” appear in Exodus 4:10, with a very different and time-based meaning, “And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.”
6. While and whiles
The word “whiles” is like the word “while”, except that it is used adverbially, that is, to describe an action, describing when the action is taking place. This can be seen in all passages where the word is used, such as, “Whiles they see vanity unto thee, whiles they divine a lie unto thee” (Ezekiel 21:29a) or “whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.” (Ezekiel 44:17b). The word “whiles” always relates to some action, specifically when the action is taking place. The usage is correct in Acts 5:4a, even though the sentence is in the passive voice, “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” “Whiles” is also related to an action in 2 Corinthians 9:13, “Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men”.
Those places where the 1611 word “whiles” has been changed to “while” are correct, as presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition (and the 1769 Edition), especially because such particular grammar was overlooked, not understood or unimportant to early printers. “Though while he lived he blessed his soul” (Psalm 49:18a). In this case there is no direct connection made to an action, in that the man blessed his soul while he lived; therefore, “while” is properly used. “And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.” (Isaiah 65:24). In this verse, there is no direct connection made to the action, which is not the people speaking, but God answering; thus again, “while” is properly used.
7. To and unto
“Unto”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, primarily means, “Indicating spatial or local relationship”.5 The use of “unto” is more limited than “to”. In Genesis 25:33 it says, “And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.” In the 1611 Edition, it said, “and he sware to him”. The words, “sware unto him” always fall to the end of a sentence or clause in the Bible, which indicates a certain closure, and also reads better in accordance with good meter.
The example of Luke 20:42, “And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand”, has the 1611 incorrectly quoting David in Psalm 110:1 by saying, “said to my Lord”. Although this is the way it is represented in Mark 12:36, Luke is giving a full quote, whereas Mark is giving an interpretive quote. The wording in Mark must also be considered in conjunction with literary style and meter.
“For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the LORD God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.” (1 Kings 22:53). The 1611 states, “according unto all”. The phrase, “according unto all” is used in the Bible as concerning doing or fulfilling commandments or prophecies, that is to say, “according unto all the detail of the things said or written”. In general cases, the words, “according to all” are used. The Bible always refers to doings and ways with the word “to”, showing that “unto” does not normally describe or connect to things done. Furthermore, since the word “unto” connects one thing to another, and the actions of Ahazaih in this verse were not done toward his fathers, but were actions of the same nature as his fathers.
1. Shamefacedness
Norton reports that “shamefacedness” in the present King James Bible must be an error, because the word “shamefastness” appears in 1611. This argument has been taken up by some anti-King James Bible only people. Norton claims, “More drastically, for the change is arguably a change of word and meaning”. (Norton, A Textual History, Cambridge, page 100).
The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that “shamefacedness” is a standardised spelling of “shamefastness”, and although the spelling “shamefacedness” appeared in 1555, the divergence in meaning did come about until later. The Oxford English Dictionary gives far more lengthy definitions for “shamefastness”, which includes “a feeling of shame”.
We can be certain that the meaning of “shamefacedness” was meant in 1611, because Paul was not commanding Christian women to feel ashamed, only that they should be modest and bashful in their manner. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (1 Timothy 2:9).
We can be sure that due to the process of purification that has taken place in the printing of the King James Bible, that the correct word with the correct spelling is now presented, indicating what was the meaning in 1611, and what we know is the meaning today.
2. Among and amongst
There are a number of instances where the 1611 word “amongst” is changed to “among”. But, in two places, that is, in Genesis 3:8 and 23:9, the 1611 word “amongst” is retained. The modernist believes that the editors were careless and the differences meaningless, but in fact, the use of any single word is exact.
The rule must be established that the Pure Cambridge Edition is always right, and that every rule that can now be ascertained, is made from describing pre-existing phenomena. However, even if the primary rule is not regarded, so as to make an investigation neutral, it can be discovered that the Pure Cambridge Edition will always adhere to a proper and detailed use of the English language, and that there will be a consistent pattern and usage.
The Oxford English Dictionary highlights a difference in meaning, that “amongst” especially applies to the use of “among”, “generally implying dispersion, intermixture or shifting position.” The first verse in which “amongst” appears says, “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8).
In every verse of the Bible where the words “among the trees” appear, the description is of a particular object viewed as stationary “among” the trees. Whereas, Adam and Eve, being two, both hid themselves, and were, as the Oxford English Dictionary informs, in “dispersion” and “shifting position”, that is to say, were not stationary, but moved throughout the trees in multiple hiding places. Thus, the elimination of the supposedly archaic “amongst” in this place would actually be a loss of vital information. Whereas, in the many other cases where “amongst” has gone, they would have actually conveyed nonsensical or incorrect details, if they were left as “amongst”. While some might accuse this of being “the devil in the detail”, it is, in fact, “the divinity in the detail”.
The other example of “amongst” is, “That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is worth he shall give it me for a possession of a buryingplace amongst you.” (Genesis 23:9). Abraham wished to bury his dead in a place where the Hittites had already buried their dead, thus, the remains of Abraham’s people should have been, as the Oxford English Dictionary informs, “intermixture”, that is to say, the burying would be intermixed with the other dead already in that place.
The word “amongst” is a word which describes the relation of an action, a verb, to a noun, which makes “amongst” in grammatical terms an adverbial genitive. For example, that it was Adam and Eve [nouns] hiding [verb] themselves [pronoun] “amongst” the trees, without reference to whether it was God [noun] walking [verb] “among” the trees. Or again, that it was Abraham [noun] burying [verb] (at that) place [noun] “amongst” the Hittites, without reference to whether it was Ephron [noun] giving [verb] possession “among” the audience of the Hittites.
3. Toward and towards
Since the word form “towards” no longer appears, there cannot be anything to consider concerning the modernist argument in this particular; namely, that the meaning and representation of that word is always that of “toward” without a doubt.
4. Beside and besides
The Oxford English Dictionary shows that “besides” has all the meanings of “beside”, except that “besides” specifically means “in addition, over and above, as well”, “Introducing a further consideration: As an additional or further matter, moreover, further” and meaning “Other than mentioned, otherwise, else”.
Therefore, the cases in which “besides” appears, must relate to the specific meaning as laid out above, “And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place” (Genesis 19:12). This case can easily be substituted for the words “in addition”. The case is even clearer where mathematics is actually used: “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six” (Genesis 46:26).
The same case can be made for the other verses which contain “besides”, and which conveys a specific concept, which information would otherwise be absent from the English Bible. Thus, when Paul said, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.” (1 Corinthians 1:16), it relates to a numerical accounting of how many Paul baptised, or again, Paul uses numerical and quantitative terms, “I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.” (Philemon 1:19).
Scrivener had a special tirade about the use of “beside” and “besides”, and yet it is so clear that there are distinct and proper meanings to these words, that it is even more amazing that there has been so little overt rejection of Scrivener’s poor and blind scholarship in this regard, though the general and tacit historical rejection of his work is plain enough.
5. Sith and since
Scrivener brings the marginal notes and the Apocrypha as evidence against the changes of “sith” to “since”; however, both the marginal notes and the Apocrypha are not to be considered as being “purified” in the sense of the actual text; though, the editorial work on these things can be seen to produce an agreeable and standardised text.
The 1611 “sith” has been changed to “since” in Jeremiah 15:7 and 23:38, while it is retained in Ezekiel 35:6. The use of the word “since” is common and has a range of meanings. “And I will fan them with a fan in the gates of the land; I will bereave them of children, I will destroy my people, since they return not from their ways.” (Jeremiah 15:7). “But since ye say, The burden of the LORD; therefore thus saith the LORD; Because ye say this word, The burden of the LORD, and I have sent unto you, saying, Ye shall not say, The burden of the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:38).
The Oxford English Dictionary shows that “sith” was “used to express cause, while since was restricted to time”.4 It can be seen in this light, that Ezekiel 35:6 relates to cause and not to time, “Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will prepare thee unto blood, and blood shall pursue thee: sith thou hast not hated blood, even blood shall pursue thee.” The words “since thou hast” appear in Exodus 4:10, with a very different and time-based meaning, “And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.”
6. While and whiles
The word “whiles” is like the word “while”, except that it is used adverbially, that is, to describe an action, describing when the action is taking place. This can be seen in all passages where the word is used, such as, “Whiles they see vanity unto thee, whiles they divine a lie unto thee” (Ezekiel 21:29a) or “whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.” (Ezekiel 44:17b). The word “whiles” always relates to some action, specifically when the action is taking place. The usage is correct in Acts 5:4a, even though the sentence is in the passive voice, “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” “Whiles” is also related to an action in 2 Corinthians 9:13, “Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men”.
Those places where the 1611 word “whiles” has been changed to “while” are correct, as presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition (and the 1769 Edition), especially because such particular grammar was overlooked, not understood or unimportant to early printers. “Though while he lived he blessed his soul” (Psalm 49:18a). In this case there is no direct connection made to an action, in that the man blessed his soul while he lived; therefore, “while” is properly used. “And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.” (Isaiah 65:24). In this verse, there is no direct connection made to the action, which is not the people speaking, but God answering; thus again, “while” is properly used.
7. To and unto
“Unto”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, primarily means, “Indicating spatial or local relationship”.5 The use of “unto” is more limited than “to”. In Genesis 25:33 it says, “And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.” In the 1611 Edition, it said, “and he sware to him”. The words, “sware unto him” always fall to the end of a sentence or clause in the Bible, which indicates a certain closure, and also reads better in accordance with good meter.
The example of Luke 20:42, “And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand”, has the 1611 incorrectly quoting David in Psalm 110:1 by saying, “said to my Lord”. Although this is the way it is represented in Mark 12:36, Luke is giving a full quote, whereas Mark is giving an interpretive quote. The wording in Mark must also be considered in conjunction with literary style and meter.
“For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the LORD God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.” (1 Kings 22:53). The 1611 states, “according unto all”. The phrase, “according unto all” is used in the Bible as concerning doing or fulfilling commandments or prophecies, that is to say, “according unto all the detail of the things said or written”. In general cases, the words, “according to all” are used. The Bible always refers to doings and ways with the word “to”, showing that “unto” does not normally describe or connect to things done. Furthermore, since the word “unto” connects one thing to another, and the actions of Ahazaih in this verse were not done toward his fathers, but were actions of the same nature as his fathers.