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.


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,, 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.


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 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”.


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.


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 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”.


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)


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”.


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).

Scanned Pure Cambridge Edition available online

Here’s an example of a Pure Cambridge Edition King James Bible online: (with the Apocrypha, no italics though.)

Just out of interest, here’s a 1637 Cambridge Edition online:

These are both fully, freely downloadable. The second link is only for nerds, scholars and book magpies, the first is the one I want to talk about.

While the correct PCE text is available on my website, to have a historical copies laid out by professional printers is a valuable resource.

There are also some examples of historically printed plain text PCEs, here’s one: (Login, no download.)

There are doubtless more, and in time, there will be more.

Also, there are PCEs to buy online, both new (from Holman publishers from and Church Bible Publishers) as well as vintage copies… I’ve just picked up a number of great copies including the huge one photographed below through ebay!

A quarto lectern Bible, pica typeface, with references.

Finally, a bonus, you can obtain scans of an original 1611 printing here.

The “middle roaders”


There are plenty of Evangelicals (and Pentecostals in particular) who are genuine born again people, who believe a lot of good things well, but have need to know things more perfectly. This reminds me of Apollos, “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” (Acts 18:26).

The “middle of the road” Evangelicals/Pentecostals are the kinds who don’t compromise the Gospel on one side (e.g. reduce Church worship to entertainment or doubt the literalness of Bible narratives), but don’t go far enough with their views to align with “perfection” on the other.

These are the well meaning Evangelicals/Pentecostals who shouldn’t be disparaged for being “lukewarm”. Why? Because there is a great chance these people can hear the Spirit of God, and do as Smith Wigglesworth did, and “come out” of their current condition. He said, “Unless Pentecost wakes up to shake herself free from all worldly things and comes into a place of the divine-likeness with God, we will hear the voice of God, ‘Come out’ and He will have something far better than this. I ask every one of you, will you hear the voice of God and come out? You ask, ‘What do you mean?’ Every one of you knows without exception, there is no word for Pentecost, only being on fire. If you are not on fire, you are not in the place of regeneration. It is only the fire of God that burns up the entanglements of the world.”

One of the views of these “middling” Evangelicals/Pentecostals is that people shouldn’t get caught up in side issues. Now I agree there is a problem where some people go way off the track on unimportant issues, and get into dangerous extremes of doctrine.

The middling types console themselves that they are not “off the track”, “in the weeds”, because they are in the middle, but being in the middle can still be a dangerous place, because it can lead to compromise and the eventual slide out of orthodoxy and truth.

Being sensible is good, but those with a middling attitude are in danger of being fence sitters. There are black and white doctrinal positions where believers must take a polar position.

There is a big opportunity for all of us to assess and discern where we are at. Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20).


Recently, an Australian Pentecostal ministry effectively said that people shouldn’t get hung up on side issues (they would say using the King James Bible alone is one of these issues), yet at the same time put out a teaching on their website that made it very clear that modern versions/translations are good, and the King James Bible is not so good. In fact, the particular Pentecostal theologian who wrote the article spent over half the time talking down the King James Bible.

I’d like to respond to that, not with a point by point refutation of their many alleged criticisms of the King James Bible, but on an appeal to the work of the Spirit.

The background to this issue is really about the rise of Infidelity. Infidelity is the spiritual condition of being not only unfaithful to God, but of rejecting God. Infidelity was popularised and promoted in the Enlightenment which led to the French Revolution. However, the creeping work of Infidelity was afterward seen slowly coming in through science, education and the churches of the English-speaking world. It is now marching though Evangelical Christianity.

Old time Pentecostals were among those most against Infidelity, but sadly, Infidelity has been creeping into Pentecostalism too.

Politically speaking there is a view called modern conservatism. This is the same attitude as is seen with the middling Pentecostals. It is often likened to being “less progressive” and “having your foot on the brakes while heading towards the political left (or, worldliness)”.

The problem then is in time middling Pentecostalism while arrive to the same position that the fake modern entertainment so-called Pentecostals now inhabit. But possibly, the middling Pentecostal could actually go the other way, and come to stand for all the right doctrines, including the use of the King James Bible.


When I was very young, the King James Bible was the main Bible used in Australian Pentecostalism. However, cracks had begun to appear. Pastors would turn to a paraphrase, or talk about what the Greek “really” means, and by time of the late 1980s, the KJB was largely replaced in Australian Pentecostalism.

Older people still had their KJBs, and some American preachers still used it, and some even used it when Rodney Howard-Browne rolled through in the mid-1990s.

The old time Pentecostals, including the fathers of Richmond Temple in Melbourne, all used the King James Bible, so why sell this birthright for a mess of pottage? Why abandon good meat for dainties?

When middling Pentecostals complain that tongues and gifts are vanishing out of Pentecostal churches, and bemoan the rise of smoke machine Sunday clubs, shouldn’t they have the same desire for the old Bible?

There is a danger in the seductive message about getting in on the “new thing” that “God” is apparently doing, where people abandon what was good in the old ways.

Tradition, doctrine and holiness are not bad, in fact, they are works of the Holy Ghost. Pentecostals have too often attacked “tradition” as being “religious”, when there is clearly and evidently good traditions and true religion.

“If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” (James 1:26).

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).


Jesus pointed to three areas that were problems with the Laodiceans. We can also take a spiritual interpretation of the same passage as applying to the Church today, and on these three areas, the middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals must take heed.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

(Revelation 3:17-19).

The first problem is that the middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals can claim spiritual richness, like “we have a superabundance of scholarship, we have many modern versions and translations”. Yet, Jesus says we ought to obtain the real richness, which is His pure word.

His pure word is available today, it is the King James Bible!

The second problem is that middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals have issues with upholding holiness standards. The Evangelicals often disparage themselves as “sinners saved by grace”, and the Pentecostals often talk about not judging people and how God is apparently wavering his standards. That type of view is a reaction against uncharitable legalists and old fashioned rigidity. They say that people got caught up in holiness standards in the past (about fashion and cultural behaviour) that they got their eyes off Jesus. But now the opposite is the problem, they have their eyes on all these perceived slights of alleged “Pharisees” and “condemners” that they are not looking so intently at Jesus at all. Preaching sermons against “being religious” and making a religion out of “I’m in a relationship” is probably a worse condition than the alleged problems of Charles L. Greenwood “women ought to wear hats” culture, and has become anti-legalism legalism. Free grace is not licence.

The old Holiness of Wesley, Finney, Wigglesworth and Greenwood is still here today, it is an integral part of Faith Pentecostalism!

The third problem is that middling Evangelicals/Pentecostals are being blinded by what they think is good hermeneutics and exegesis. They are in danger of not understanding doctrine properly because when they look to the Scripture, there is a filter on that says, “know the Greek”, “bow to Jewish culture” and “follow Gordon Fee’s methods”. But the haze of error and the fog of the devil can roll in.

When Jesus said to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches, He meant we can hear clearly without all these interventions and contrivances when we interpretate Scripture. And we can perceive clearly today!

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

(Matthew 13:14–16).


Middle type Pentecostals are not bad Christians, they are not false brethren or heretics. They certainly have good doctrines, they use the Scripture in their teaching and they believe it to be the inspired, infallible Word of God.

But on the Bible version/translation issue, too many are ignorant or misled.

When they say that textual variants in the old manuscripts don’t matter, it is strange, because there are a lot of important Pentecostal doctrines in the end of Mark, and for a long time many Pentecostals knew modernism was attacking them by minimising those verses.

The charge that King James Bible words have changed meaning since 1611 is wrong, in that the old meanings of words still exist and are still known. We are able to educate people on the meaning of doctrinal words, why is it suddenly bad that people have to be aided in knowing some King James Bible words? Also, we actually believe that the Holy Ghost is helping people to understand the Bible, since when should we act like He is not at work, and are therefore obliged to lay aside our King James Bibles?

Since the Holy Ghost has been at work through history and present since the day of Pentecost, we should believe that by the Church practice and by divine providence, proper copies of the Scripture have passed down to us, and that the translation was able to be made right in 1611, and that God has prepared the English language to be capable to spread His exact words and meanings to a global audience for the latter days. God is good, awesome and able to bring about perfection, right?

I have to shake my head if some Pentecostal theologian says that “the KJB has been revised three times” and that “there is not just one version of it”. As a Pentecostal, and having done a lot of study on this, I can confirm that the KJB has in fact gone through many different editions. Yet in all that, no one could honestly say that the 1611’s underlying text and translation has been changed in the KJB. Yes, there’s been errors of the press and corrections of them and yes spelling and grammar has been standardised, but no the King James Bible today is not a different “version”.

I note the irony that the middling Pentecostals and in full agreement with the McArthurite anti-Pentecostalists on the Bible version/translation issue.

Evangelicals and Pentecostals will be doing well if they turn towards the King James Bible, and stop this strange drive of producing unedifying materials against the KJB (blogs, videos, etc.)