Do we use a 1769 Cambridge edition?

[bibleprotector]

It has been said,

"Most use the 1769 Cambridge Ed."

This is incorrect (or imprecise).

First, because the Bible printed at Cambridge in 1769 was of an earlier edition type, based on the 1762 revision by Thomas Paris (or some say, F. S. Parris), which was printed by John Archdeacon (or perhaps with the name John Baskerville on it).

Second, because not only are there slight variations in various printings and editions, but deliberate alterations were made, so that the Cambridge Edition of 1762 to 1830s differs from the Victorian Cambridge from the 1830s to the early 1900s, which differs again to the Cambridge Edition which was standard for much of the twentieth century, and which differs again to the edition presently made by Cambridge called the Concord Edition.

Third, because Benjamin Blayney superintended two editions in 1769 from Oxford, which differ slightly to each other.

Fourth, because editions by Oxford (and also Eyre and Strahan) differed slightly over the years, so that in 1805 the correcting of 116 typographical errors of the 1769 had been completed (haphazardly corrected in ensuing editions).

Fifth, that in 1817 a slight revision was made by D'Oyly and Mant of the 1805 form of the 1769 (Revision) Edition, even affecting word count.

Sixth, that the Oxford Edition of the twentieth century does differ in tiny details to that of the nineteenth.

Seventh, that while the Cambridge Edition stemming from the 1769 Edition has generally been accepted and said to be standard, the whole area has not been understood, and therefore the question "which edition is the right one" not answered properly, or answered rightly out of ignorance (providentially!).

The differences and distinctions in between editions by the same publishing company are much greater than "hungred" versus "an hungered". This is NOT a traditional Cambridge “difference”. That is, in fact, one of the least differences found in American modernised editions versus British traditional ones, where many of the American modernisations are far worse.

Of course these differences in King James Bible editions are nothing like the errors found throughout modern versions in changing the text and messing up the translation.

While I agree that the text and translation are not an issue, and that we do not want to get into straining at gnats at expence (NB!) of truth, we do want to have the best what God has provided us with, and be able to have full certainty in the very presentation of Scripture: "And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it." (Hab. 2:2).

"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).

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Prov. 30:5).

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4).

I want to concentrate a little on the following passage:

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalm 12:6, 7).

How do we understand what Scripture is teaching? We must believe it, study it and compare Scripture with Scripture.

Very plainly, God’s words are pure words. They are existing presently. They are in earth. And they are, it is prophesied, purified seven times. When the Psalm was written, it was stating a truth, even though the process of purification had not outworked in time.

The purification of the Word, and specifically the seven times it occurred, is directly regarding the very words of Scripture. This in no way is limited to the Hebrew. In fact, the promise being outworked, we can discern, judge and apply, is with the English Bible.

It is related to that, because the next statement was that God would keep them. The them, very obviously, is whatever is being spoken of, being the words. This is the plain and clear reading of the King James Bible, and the simplest and fittest interpretation.

The promise is that God would keep His words. We know that He did not mean Hebrew, because he spoke about from this generation and for ever. This means that when Hebrew would not be spoken, when Hebrew manuscripts would differ very slightly, there would be one standard: this would be the standard before the return of Christ, the King James Bible.

So how are the words of the King James Bible specifically, by God’s special providence, purified seven times? First, because the King James Bible is the seventh major, ordinary, traditional and proper Protestant English Bible of the Reformation. The translators had a list of six former translations to follow when making the King James Bible, which began from Tyndale’s Bible. Each Bible Version can be considered a purification or improvement in some way.

Even more importantly, in regards to the very presentation in purity of God’s Word, we find that the King James Bible itself went through a seven-times process in its progress. There are really seven major editions of the King James Bible, which show revision in the presentation (but not the text or translation). The kinds of specific editorial revision work, which contributed to and purified the King James Bible, was the correction of press errors, the standardisation of the language (e.g. spelling), and the introduction of uniformity and regularisation in things like italics and other editorial consistencies. These editions are numbered from the first one in 1611, and the purifications within the King James Bible occurred in following editions, finalising in the Pure Cambridge Edition (which could be described as a slight Cambridge revision of the 1769 Edition — all present editions called “1769” are really slightly altered forms of the 1769 Edition, and none are exactly right except the Pure Cambridge Edition).

In this study of Scripture and application of it to history, we might find as helpful a proper dictionary, knowledge of the contents of the former Protestant English versions, and the information contained in commentaries and other teaching.

When the Scripture says, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD”, it can be interpreted to mean that God would keep the righteous, and that God would keep the poor; however, it would be wrong to deny the plain and clear reading of the King James Bible, which refers to words. No excuse to deny this meaning, whether it is derived from scholars, or the Hebrew, or the marginal notes can be of the same weight and authority as Scripture itself, which being read plainly is fitly and properly interpreted according to its meaning, being the intended meaning of God.

Unless we have a pure and perfect presentation of God’s Word, we may not so fitly be able to answer questions like,
What is the name of God in Isaiah 9:6? "Counsellor" or "Counseller"?
Did the blind man at Jericho call Jesus the "son of David" or the "Son of David"?
Is the first witness in earth in 1 John 5:8 "Spirit" or "spirit"?
All the way to questions like,
What is the difference between “morter” and “mortar”?
What is the difference between “intreat” and “entreat”?
What is the difference between “farther” and “further”?