Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

Where can proper printed Pure Cambridge Edition King James Bibles be obtained?

This ministry has made available budget style pure King James Bibles, which may be ordered through this site for a subsidised price.

Is it “counterfeit” to have “inquire” instead of “enquire”? What about lowercase “spirit” in places?

Some King James Bible advocates have pointed out how recent King James Bibles have contained silent and unauthorised changes. Some call these “counterfeit” Bibles, especially where the spelling has been Americanised, and words “updated”.

The problem is that some King James Bible people, when comparing these altered King James Bibles, have used the Concord Cambridge Edition as their standard of comparison. This edition is close, but not identical with the Pure Cambridge Edition. The Concord Edition takes in readings from the Oxford Edition, and contains various types of errors, including omitting the word “and” from the phrase “and the Hivites” in Exodus 23:23, altering the word “Geba” in Ezra 2:26 to the impure “Gaba”, wrongly capitalising “spirit” in some places such as 1 John 5:8 and so on. Since it is known by those who have studied differences in the King James Bible editions that the Cambridge Edition is better than the Oxford, it would be incorrect to then take the Concord Cambridge, which has taken various Oxford Edition readings and spellings. The correct edition is the Pure Cambridge Edition, and when this is used to compare to modernised editions, the differences would be correctly assessed. As it is, the Concord Edition has followed the Oxford in spelling “enquire”, even though the Pure Cambridge Edition (and tradition) had “inquire”.

The King James Bible has traditionally, at various places referred to the “spirit of God” and so forth (see Genesis 6:3, Exodus 31:3; 35:31, Numbers 11:29; 24:2, Job 27:3, Psalm 51:11, Psalm 143:10, Isaiah 11:2, Isaiah 34:16, Joel 2:28, 29 and 1 Corinthians 2:12). Some think that when God or the Holy Ghost is referred to, that it should always be capital “Spirit”. However, there are reasons why the word is sometimes lowercase. Some have got into the error of “correcting” the King James Bible, such as at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.

There is a correct pure edition, and variations away from it are impurities. It has doubtless been due to ignorance of differences between Cambridge printed Bibles that some have thought that the Concord Cambridge Edition was the correct King James Bible, since it is commonly said by scholars that the text of the Cambridge Edition is better or correct. The point is that the right Cambridge Edition has to be identified and used.

Did the Septuagint have any effect on the making of the Pure Cambridge Edition circa 1900?

The Septuagint is an ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, which took place in 275 B.C. It so happens that the man who edited the Pure Cambridge Edition, Henry Adeney Redpath (1848–1908), was an expert in the Septuagint, and edited a concordance of it around 1900.

In 1882, Dean Burgon said, as concerning proper “revision” of the King James Bible, “Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success. And finally, the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial; to confine themselves to the correction of ‘plain and clear errors;’ and in fact to ‘introduce into the Text as few alterations as possible.’”

Redpath matched up with Burgon’s requirements: he was an expert in the Septuagint and he only corrected true impurities in the King James Bible. At the beginning of Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint, he wrote of the many cases “in which the Masoretic Text differs from that translated in the Septuagint version, and far more others in which that version is a paraphrase rather than a translation.” In other words, he knew that the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text was superior, and that the Septuagint was only a help. This is the same view of the translators of the King James Bible in 1611, who also found the Septuagint helpful when they came across rare or seemingly uncertain (to the various Rabbi commentators) Hebrew words.

Rev. Redpath’s editorial work on the King James Bible, while would have been in line with his knowledge of the Septuagint and his other learning, was really concerned with restoring true 1611 readings, especially in the proper spelling of names. Redpath was against modernism, and made less than fifty changes in the Cambridge published King James Bible, which resulted in the Pure Cambridge Edition as is known today.

How can we know that the Pure Cambridge Edition is right even in the small things when comparing it to other editions?

“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).

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2). [Special note: Small capitals have been manually created in this verse.]

God’s Word must be correct right down to the punctuation mark. The example of the placing of the apostrophe on “wits” in Psalm 107:27 is a good example: “They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits’ end.” Now the Oxford Edition has “wit’s”.

One wit is “wit”.

Two or more is “wits”.

If something belongs to a wit, then it is “wit’s”.

If something belongs to two or more wits, then it is the “wits’”.

In this verse, “they” are two or more; “men” are two or more; “their” are two or more — so it must be talking about wits not a wit, and it must belong to wits’ not one wit’s. This is showing that the Pure Cambridge Edition is right, but that the Oxford Edition cannot be the pure and perfect Word of God, because it has an impurity in it.

There are three areas of evidence to show that the Pure Cambridge Edition is the right edition:

1. Spiritual. This is because the Scripture shows that there must be a Word perfect Bible, and that it must be presented in a jot and tittle correct way. There are many Bible verses showing this.

2. Providential. That all things which have happened to make it as it is are actually the works of God, such as, why things happened at certain times, in certain places, by certain people and not others, etc.

3. Natural. Things like doing word comparisons, understanding the history, checking the meaning of words, and so on always show in the natural that the Pure Cambridge Edition is correct.

Thus, a person should say, “I have faith in the Scripture, so I receive the spiritual evidence.” They should say, “I see that God has brought the knowledge of this to me, and I do not believe that it is a coincidence that God has led me to find the word perfect Bible according to the providential evidence.” And they should say, “I can see by natural evidence that the Pure Cambridge Edition is correct in what I can understand, and so it must be correct in the places where I do not know or am not sure about, because when I look at other editions, I can see things which are definitely wrong, which I know have impurities or errors.”

How is it that Cambridge knows nothing about the pure text or Redpath?

Cambridge know very little about their own text. This is not a recent phenomena, as David Norton, Cambridge King James Bible editor, has stated in his research, that this type of loss of textual history has happened at various times in the progress of the Cambridge Bible from after 1762. For example, the people at Cambridge did not know anything about their text around 1830, so they abandoned it in favour of substantially following the Oxford text based on the 1769 Edition.

Likewise, Norton himself states that the Pure Cambridge Edition was finished by 1931, but he does not know any more than that, in fact, he thinks it not worth the time and effort to find out any further. Norton also relates how the managing Bible editor wrote to him in 1994 saying that she knew very little of how the recent Concord Cambridge text was made, except that it was done in conjunction with someone at Oxford, and this was supposed to have taken place some time after the Second World War, that is, somewhere between 1945 and 1994. In fact, it must have taken place after the mid-1960s.

Norton revealingly calls the linage of the Cambridge text, “a received text.” What is most amazing in all this, is that there should be people who know about such things, and people alive who remember such things, and records being kept at Cambridge University Press which tell of such things. But the production people at Cambridge have confessed personally that they know almost nothing about such matters. The reason for this is actually because they have gone away from the standard, right into modern versions, and into the perverting of the King James Bible. (No matter how learned David Norton is, his modernising work in the recent New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is completely vain.)


As for H. A. Redpath’s role, while there is an absence of any actual historical statements about his work on the King James Bible, his name appears in Collins printed Pure Cambridge Editions with the pronunciation table. That is the same table and same text of Cambridge printed Bibles. This indicates that Redpath was responsible for making the Pure Cambridge Edition, especially because most of the differences between the Pure Cambridge Edition and the old Cambridge Edition are on words with the pronunciation symbols on them.

Although experts and King James Bible scholars have recognised that the Cambridge Edition is superior to the Oxford Edition, there has been only very little study done on it by them or by King James Bible only teachers. But this is a major area. And considering that the issue of King James Bible variations touches on the very accuracy of the Bible, it is a wonder that there has been so little research in the present or recent post-Scrivener state of the King James Bible. Clearly, it has required Holy Ghost given revelation for these things to be manifest in any detail. God has certainly used Victory Faith Centre in this regard, especially as there has been a melding together of the Puritan/Fundamentalist/King James Bible doctrine with the Traditional Pentecostal/Faith doctrine at Victory Faith Centre. Thus, the advance into revelation concerning a word perfect Bible.

Cambridge have gone against their own godly tradition and therefore have become greatly misguided in their understanding or keeping of the King James Bible. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” (Hosea 4:6).

What has God done? “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are” (1 Corinthians 1:27, 28). God has called the Elders of Victory Faith Centre to be Guardians of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Are the pronunciation symbols changing the Word of God?

“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).

The using of pronunciation symbols as introduced into the King James Bible by H. A. Redpath, and their often appearance in Pure Cambridge Edition Bibles, never changes a letter of the Scripture to another, much less a word or a meaning of a word. In every case, the letters are retained, though a line, macron or dot or some other mark may appear with the letters.

The Bible commends proper sounding of the letters:

“Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right.” (Judges 12:6a).

“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly” (Ezra 8:8a).

Where was the pure Word before 1900, and why was it not revealed until after 2000?

People could have faith at any time in history that they had the pure Word. In the time of the Apostles the Word was not gathered in one volume. The Word of God was in a scattered form until the Reformation. Then it was gathered. There are gathered editions of the Greek, gathered editions of the European Protestants and gathered editions in English. These were finalised in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible was the coming together in one volume of the book of the Word, but there were impurities so that the jot and tittle were not being represented as they should have been. Although people, such as the King James Bible believing movement, held that the King James Bible was correct, it was not until the revelation of the Pure Cambridge Edition from the year 2000 that such a historical linage of faith was vindicated. It was significant that the pure Word in its purified form, Redpath’s Cambridge revision, had been around for about a hundred years. The Pure Cambridge Edition view is actually the narrow form of the King James Bible doctrine. There are some people who claim to be supporters of the King James Bible, who either believe wrong things like that the translation was inspired in 1611 and that all editions are correct, or else, that the King James Bible is merely the best version, but not infallible as it is apparently impossible to translate 100% accurately into English. The Pure Cambridge Edition view is the only consistent faith view, unlike the two other major “factions” of the King James Bible adherents.

It is clear and evident that the pure view is consistent with the working of the Holy Ghost. He has caused both the appearance of the pure Word and the revelation of the pure Word. The Holy Ghost has made it go hand in hand. When the Bible had come to a certain form, when the Church had come to a certain point, when the English language had come to be global, when nations had come to certain places, when communication technology was at the right stage, when the harvest was prepared, right in conjunction with these, providentially, the Holy Ghost brought about the exact pure Word revelation. People may have believed they were handling and viewing the pure Word in the past, but it is on a “meat” level now, no longer “milk”.

We may be certain that we have it now, and that it is not for a future time, because all the promises of the Scripture are present tense. “NOW faith is...” (see Hebrews 11:1).

At all times in history since the inspiration the same Word as is in the PCE has been present, but never in one language together in one book with exact meanings as can be conveyed by God’s use of Biblical English in a global language.

It is clear that the two major “factions” of King James Bible supporters are both generally anti-Pentecostal. This alone would both disqualify them from the Holy Ghost’s use as to the pure Word and future developments, and would hinder them from learning the truth from Him, seeing they resist His knowledge.

Is the electronic text of the Pure Cambridge Edition an eighth purification or a revision of the Pure Cambridge Edition?

The same text which was made circa 1900 is that which appears in many substantially agreeing Bibles, printed by Cambridge and by Collins. This edition is different to all others in its particular spelling of the word “Geba” rather than “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26.

There are three classes of variations in presentations of the Pure Cambridge Edition. The first is the appearance of accidental typographical errors. The second is the agreement at a particular place or several places in one edition with the Oxford Edition (seen occasionally in Collins editions). The third class of differences are those variations within the Pure Cambridge Edition which appear in a certain proportion of presentations, and which have been settled by Guardians of the Pure Cambridge Edition at Victory Faith Centre.

The exact text of the Pure Cambridge Edition as presented by the Bible Protector and Victory Faith Centre was not a revision of the existing body of Pure Cambridge Edition presentations, but merely discerned the agreed and unified text from them. Although it was in line with purification, it was not a purification revision like as has occurred in the history of the King James Bible. No new matter was added, neither was anything taken away, but the consensus of the Pure Cambridge Edition was presented in one definitive text. Thus, the sure knowledge of the final, settled King James Bible text, needing no change and allowing no improvement.

How was the electronic text of the Pure Cambridge Edition made?

The Pure Cambridge Edition electronic text was made by a lengthy process of comparing and merging electronic files containing the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible, and checking them against Cambridge and Collins printed Bibles to eliminate all errors.

Where can printed copies of the Pure Cambridge Edition be obtained?

1. PCE Bibles are available through this website.

2. It may be possible that existing stocks of new PCE Bibles printed by HarperCollins in the Popular Size may be obtained from that publisher, Bible distributors and bookshops.

3. Second hand copies may be available in certain countries in churches, with older Christians and through second hand shops. In Australia, many Collins printed Bibles from the 1940s and 1950s conforming to the PCE may be found, as well as Cambridge printed Bibles from the same era.

For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”.

Use the checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Pure Cambridge Edition:


1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2

2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19

3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4

4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16

5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24

6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16

7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1

8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39

9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73

10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12

11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28

12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
_________________
Matthew Verschuur — www.bibleprotector.com