The article “Borrowing from the KJV Bank and Trust” by Mark Ward is full of all kinds of problems. For example, the major thematic framework Ward uses to talk about the King James Bible is by Tolkien’s ring analogy, and not by a Biblical analogy. (The title of the “bank and trust” is mixed metaphor to this theme.) As usual, Ward does what Burgon accused the Infidels in his day of doing, which is, to treat the Bible as just a natural, human book, in this case, Ward views the King James Bible’s existence as being a natural, human phenomenon. He deliberately doesn’t recognise any providences, prophecies or anything else about its coming to be or its future, and in fact mocks the idea of supernaturalism altogether as if that angels sang as the KJB came abroad in some beatific birth. The KJB, in Ward’s view, is rhetorically the product of realpolitik, gritty urban chance and human contrivance. Of course the KJB appeared in a time of opposition — opposition from the Romanists, and opposition from the hyper-Puritans — but that is not to be analogous to the oppositions to modern translations (given that, of course, people will be inclined perhaps to resist something because it is new — but this is an entirely natural argument). And seeing that Ward thinks that things must be won by parley, it seems he is actually advocating a strange doctrine of “victory thorough adversity”, or to paraphrase it according to Heraclitus, “War is the parent of all things, some translations are made commercial successes, and some are critically acclaimed though parley.” Rather, the parley is for the truth of the KJB to stamp out opposition, just as the KJB was said to be able to do to others in 1611, so likewise it would equally best newfangled works of today. Ward then says that the KJB is the LXX of today, as if the KJB, which was the product of much deliberation and many former works, is the same as the LXX which was made hastily as the first ever translation. And so he misuses the analogy, for the KJB translators never thought that their work was just another LXX (unsound, needing much correction, etc.). No, that view is an entirely modern, unhistorical one, as championed by the likes of Mark Ward. Many indications from the KJB’s dedication and preface show that the KJB men thought that their work was right and proper, not needing intermeddling. The major problem is that Ward thinks that the increase of knowledge of these days must therefore require the modern man to leave the KJB behind. This principle of Infidelity is actually rejected in Scripture, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7). For, once having accomplished the pinnacle, no new things can ever exceed it. Mark Ward also ignorantly, and one would almost have to say deceptively, claims that the KJB in most common use today is from 1769. This is simply not the case in any way. In fact, the editions of the KJB in use today derive from editorial work AFTER 1769, so that the standard Oxford edition available today comes from or after Queen Victoria’s time. Also, this wrongly implies that somehow the text and translation of 1611 is different to 1769 or today, which is simply not the case. The most common Cambridge editions today come from the twentieth century. Ultimately, Mark Ward argues for a plurality where the KJB is “tolerated” as one of many translations, and should be recognised (seemingly reluctantly) for its success, dominance and historical place. It is pretty obvious that Mark Ward is making a case not to annihilate the KJB. But since when has that even been an option? Since when has there been a genocidal intent against it? (In this he bewrays the true intention of his side in this “parley”.) He seeks to impose a plurality, as if he is saying, “Oh, you can have the KJB, but as long as you accept all these other translations as well — the KJB is just one of many.” In that view, the KJB cannot be removed but it can be destroyed by being made less special. Mark Ward would do better to apply his skills in the mathom house to the language, philological history and provenance of the modern English Red Book translation, which ironically, has its best text in a single volume as published by HarperCollins.
There is a hidden reality that the modern world does not acknowledge, yet it is pervasive and important: the spiritual realm.
Even though unseen, the Bible makes it clear that there are angels and devils operating around the place. The Holy Ghost is also present. The world, in its fallen state, is riddled with evil spirits, devils.
In recent times there has been much talk about political dictators, deep state actors and nefarious conspiratorial elements out there in the world.
Rather than looking at some man as a bad person, with a focus on him in the natural, physical realm, really the understanding should be on what evil spirit is behind them which is manifesting out in what the person is doing.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12).
The fight is not merely physical or political, but is first spiritual. If evil spirits are at work (and they are) it is not enough to use propaganda, people power or any other methods of defeating them. Spirits must be confronted with spiritual power.
In Daniel 10 there is a description about how angels were fighting with an evil spirit. As such, the way that warfare against evil is waged should be first understood as spiritual force being applied against spiritual force.
Which is to say, the force of Christ’s power versus the operation of the devil. Christians who are “awake” should not be thinking that the solution to a political “dictator” is some counter political power, but rather is spiritual power against the spiritual evil behind the scenes.
On that basis, things happen. The natural or political will follow what has already happened in the spiritual. (In the Bible, Jesus cursed a fig tree, where the curse effected the roots of the tree, but the tree only appeared withered the next day.)
Whereas those people who rely on things like violence against the police, mass rallies and cut through propaganda are missing out on the first vital step that is going to lead to a proper political solution (not fighting the police in street brawls).
We can see little antichrists today, and little antichrists are fighting Christ and Christianity, so equally solutions against them are going to be by using Christian means, i.e. believing, repentance, prayer, etc.
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1 John 4:3).
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” (1 John 2:18).
The real solution first of all is Christianity. Of course it is wonderful to see things besetting bad leaders, but ultimately until and unless there is a movement to take up Christianity, there is no real solution.
People need to get down on their knees so to speak, and turn to the Almighty, because ultimately it is only divine intervention that is the real power to destroy the tyrant spirit. On that basis, no dictator can continue.
It takes humility and getting things right in people’s lives and in churches, that’s what bowing the knee means. Coming to Christ and accepting Him as the Saviour is the solution.
“FRET not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.” (Psalm 37:1, 2).
Political action should follow spiritual action. It is not enough to pray, repent or call to God. Once that’s done, then the corresponding actions must follow. We cannot just “pray the dictator away”, but it requires actions that come from the basis of seeing the spiritual victory of the angelic over the demonic.
Matthew Verschuur’s “National Gospel” is available for download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1777l7qmCWorAcFq5zOEwIajhbjuOlQlK/view?usp=sharing
This short book discusses:
- What the Gospel is about and how it is currently viewed as primarily individualistic rather than targeting people groups.
- The implications of the promise to Abraham about nations being blessed. The national focus of the Great Commission. The general Bible promises and prophecies of converting the Gentiles and the heathen. What the Gospel does for a nation.
- Understanding spiritual Israel, Bible prophecy interpretation, Infidelity and its effect on Roman Catholicism. Overview of the blessing of the latter days before the return of Christ and giving hope that whole nations can still be reached.
- Considering the stone that strikes the image in Daniel chapter two. Was Thomas Foster right to teach that the stone represents Britain? Has God planned to use certain nations for the Gospel in history?
- Considering the vision of the Ancient of days and the Son of man in Daniel chapter seven. Are these people symbols representing some work of God in history?
- The cleansing of the Church and readiness for national changes in light of great international events such as the Gog-led Magog invasion and its results, including for the conversion of the Jewish nation.
All of this and much more packed into a book which is designed for knowledgeable Christians.
David O’Steen is an American preacher and author at Hope Bible Church in Jackson, Georgia.
Recently he made a video talking about the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible. Some of his basic facts were generally right, but he made some incorrect statements which we will go through.
David knows that there are typographical errors in the history of the printing of the King James Bible and that spellings have altered since 1611. However, he implies that the Pure Cambridge Edition position is pedantry. His belief is that all variations in editions are concurrently true.
Further, one reason why David is very suspicious of the Pure Cambridge Edition is because I am a Pentecostal from Australia. It is obviously a bitter pill that I am Pentecostal because there is a huge divide between King James Bible only Baptists and Pentecostals in the United States.
Note that I did not invent the Pure Cambridge Edition, it was printed by Cambridge for decades in millions of copies before I was ever born.
David says that whether the word is spelt (or, spelled as they say in the USA), “ancle” or “ankle” it means that same thing. The answer to that is simple. Yes, it does have the same meaning, but we are talking about exactness and God’s use of English, not how we use English in our own usage.
Well of course no doctrinal collapse or whatever is there just because of a “c” or a “k”. That’s not the point, the point is that we should stick with God’s way, not our own heads. We should not diminish ought from the Scripture.
The Pure Cambridge Edition, which arose maybe in the late 1920s, is clearly called “pure” in relation to editorial standards. That is, in relation to typographical accuracy, a deliberate scheme of spelling, etc.
What David wrongly does is conflate the editorial issue with the translation and textual/version issue. There are three levels here: TEXT, TRANSLATION and EDITION. The first two go together: the correct TEXT is the King James Bible, gathered from the TR variants and set forth in 1611 and beyond. The correct English TRANSLATION is the King James Bible which was made in 1611, improving upon the Bishops’, Geneva and other translations. The same TEXT and TRANSLATION have been printed throughout all normal and proper editions. Thus, the Oxford Edition is indeed the pure and correct TEXT and TRANSLATION. However, due to some editorial variations and typographical errors, the Oxford Edition is not quite as pure EDITIONALLY as the PCE is.
David knows that the variations in editions are not intentional corruptions of the King James Bible itself, but have arisen through circumstance, accident, poor editorial decisions, etc. However, editorial variations are still deliberate. Surely the editors at Oxford knew that the Cambridge editions were spelling some words differently and had some tiny variations in wording. But the Oxford people stuck to their tradition. Having said that, the potential for misreading or for error in the detail is therefore possible with an edition that might have typos, misspelled words and worse, editorial changes that are actually wrong. These wrong changes are not going so far as to change the translation or version itself, but still pose impediments as to what is correct, precisely and accurately.
No one should think that a Bible with typos is as good as a Bible with no typos. No, it is proper and godly and orderly to get rid of the typos.
David makes a comment about some young Christian who gets a King James Bible and it happens not to be PCE. Let me say right now that God’s grace is sufficient. I don’t think anyone is (or should be) ripping that Thomas Nelson or whatever out of his hand or calling other editions the work of Satan or whatever. The PCE position is a nuanced one, whereas often a Christian would be so ignorant that he would think that getting an ESV was fine. If the Body of Christ was limited to only King James Bible users or PCE supporters rather than all born again believers today, such a distinction measure at this time would be a damnable heresy. I would to God a Christian read an Oxford KJB rather than the NIV. But there is a better thing than just “any edition” of the KJB.
David then looks at the list of 12 test places of the editions of the King James Bible (the list is on bibleprotector.com). He seems to think that the PCE issue is one where we are saying that there are deliberate and evil corruptions, and that unless you have a PCE, your King James Bible is corrupt. This is clearly NOT what is being said by me on my website or any video I make. Purity is about refinement, not about saying that things less pure are the work of Satan. (The Geneva Version was less pure than the KJB, but the Geneva Version was not the work of Satan.)
David tries to argue that the differences in the tests don’t matter. But they do. Now he rightly says that things to do with the Holy Ghost are not always with a capital “S” on the word “Spirit”.
But then he makes a huge blunder. David says he thinks that I am saying that the word “spirit” (such as in Acts 11:28 or 1 John 5:8) is not something to do with the Holy Ghost. This is simply not true. It is evident that while David has seen that there are variations in these things from 1611 and that the word “spirit” is plenty of times lower case today, he has not understood anything about what I have explained on this issue.
(It is very easy to go online and find the basic information and some semi-negative report about me being a Pentecostal and then just base a flawed conclusion on these points.)
I have quite extensively talked about the “spirit” case issue, including how the Holy Ghost is meant or his work, and why it is precise to use lower case “s” on the word “spirit” on occasions.
The problem is that David is taking a sort of ultra-simplistic approach that basically it doesn’t matter whether it is capital or lower case, because it just must mean the Holy Ghost. But the case difference gives nuance and is entirely deliberate. Editors like Blayney in 1769 knew full well to capitalise deity or that usage should be editorially consistent, yet these learned editors deliberately chose to have the word “spirit” lower case in places, because as we are able to discover today, there is a meaning difference in the case usage.
Laughably, David uses the Donald Waite argument that since Hebrew or Greek did not use the case of letters, therefore it mustn’t be an issue in English either.
By David’s logic, then, whether “god” or “God” doesn’t matter. And “Word” and “word” don’t matter either. Why not then have “dAVID” if letters don’t matter?
And likewise, if spelling is no issue, why not today have “Iesus Christ” or “Sonne of God”?
No, rather, worlds of meaning hang on capital and lower case. Just look at the issue around the word “god” in the story of the fiery furnace.
David brings up examples where one place has “Spirit” or “spirit”, and whether another nearby or parallel passage as the other. These are exact things, and I explain them on my website. The issue is not about fake uniformity, but about what exactly the word “spirit” means as is different to “Spirit”. I discuss this in detail elsewhere, but it seems to me that David completely has ignored this, and instead tried to draw his own negative conclusions about me and reinforce his own belief that variations in editions don’t matter.
David thinks the difference of “spirit” or “Spirit” both being present, somehow must be an “inconsistency”. Not so, but rather precision. I make points about this issue on my website and in youtube videos.
Now, it gets more and more ridiculous with David when he tries to justify the two different wordings. He begins the mental gymnastics by trying to say that both the “or” and “and” readings of Joshua 19:2 are correct.
A quick question should be asked, seeing as God inspired and gave one word, how can it now be two? How is it that now all the “legitimate” variations in editions are all to be accounted as correct and true? No, the whole KJBO argument versus modern versions is that only one set of words is right, so obviously the same must be with editions. Only “and” or “or” can be correct at Joshua 19:2. It is pretty easy to see that the word “or” is correct because Sheba has two names, whereas saying “and” creates a distinction which then messes up the total number of towns listed in that passage.
In another example in Jeremiah 34:16, the PCE says “ye” and the Oxford says “he”. Where each word has a different meaning, and worlds of meaning hang on the grammar or words, to say “ye” is not to say “he”. There is different information conveyed by these word differences. They are not concurrently true.
In another example, David tries to reconcile “flieth” and “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16. But these are two different words. David then gives this crazy explanation that people are saying that the cankerworm could fly. (In fact, the cankerworm does change to a flying insect, e.g. a moth.) He then strains to explain how both could be correct. But once again, seeing as each word has a different meaning, and meaning itself must be precise with God’s words, the “additional information” (basically an “advanced revelation”) that David tries to concoct by adding the “fleeing” to the “flying” is incorrect, since it can and should be only one or the other. (Otherwise would not God have said in Hebrew that the cankerworm flees and flies away?) David says, “the point is the same” … but how can flying and fleeing be the same? He really knows this because he then tellingly says that if you think it is one or the other, write what you think it is in the margin. And now we see that David has come to where the modernists are at: deciding God’s truth for themselves, deciding what variation they would like to choose as their preferred one. He says don’t throw the Bible away because it hasn’t got it the way you think it should be. Maybe stick with the PCE and that’s it after all!
In the example of “further” and “farther”, David clearly has no knowledge from either the dictionary or myself on the clear and distinct meaning of these two words. They are not synonyms. They are not complementary information. No, it has to be one or the other, and the PCE is right with “further” at the place in Matthew. When elsewhere the PCE has “farther” that also is correct in its place.
In the example of “bewray” and “betray”, David knows nothing about these being two completely different words with completely different meanings. But David is wanting to make all variations concurrently correct … is he suggesting maybe that we should get a KJB that has all the variations present, maybe as marginal notes, so that only then we can have the “full” picture?
David rightly says that the 1769 is just as much KJB as the 1611 Edition. Yes, that is my point too. But we are not talking about the VERSION-TEXT or the TRANSLATION, we are talking about eliminating typos, using proper (Biblical) spelling and having editorially resolved what is the right word/spelling in every place.
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4).
Every word means every single word, not all the variations. God’s mouth did not produce variations like, “bewray” AND “betray” at a place. No, God’s word must one or the other.
David falsely says, “Don’t let a Pentecostal from Australia undermine your faith.” This is blatantly wrong! I am encouraging faith in God’s words. Did I ever once go to the USA and tear up Oxford Editions? No, I am about encouraging faith in God’s words, and that we should have and know them.
I have plainly said that the Oxford has the pure and perfect text and translation, because the KJB is the right VERSION and the right TRANSLATION.
But, it is Biblically consistent to have the proper words and their meanings in a proper edition.
“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:20, 21).
Of course, as David says, no one should be getting hung up. I know some people are like, “This Bible’s printer missed a full stop here” which if taken to an extreme can be unbalanced and sort of so-called mental illness territory. No, the Pure Cambridge Edition is one for the Church, to have a consistent edition, to have precision to the words, a proper tradition, a uniformity in usage.
Any true believer in Christ should be seeing that the common heritage of God’s words is important. The issue being discussed here is not about Pentecostalism or Independent Fundamentalist Dispensationalism, it is about simply whether we believe God’s words and believe that God has provided His words exactly and precisely, and that His providence and power is such as to ensure that we’ve had the King James Bible properly edited over the years and typographical errors resolved. If we know we have something right then it makes it impossible for the devil or anything to change even one jot or tittle in KJB on us.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32).
Information on the Spirit/spirit case issue:
Jesse Duplantis said that in Heaven the name of God is JEHOVAH. This is the word in the King James Bible. The name “JEHOVAH” is rejected by modern versions and modernists.
David Daniels, from Chick Publications, made a video (8 April 2021) where he discussed the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible. Daniels has made various good videos and his ministry has been generally helpful. He also wants to stick with the King James Bible, which is laudable.
WHAT IS PURITY?
Daniels begins by asking whether people should throw away their King James Bible if it is not a Pure Cambridge Edition.
My answer is that no one should be throwing out the King James Bible. Of course, we should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Would anyone use a book with typographical errors when they have another printing of that same book which doesn’t?
What Daniels does is confuse the purity of the version and translation of the KJB and then apply that standard as if someone is saying that the KJB printed by Oxford or wherever is not a pure version and translation. No, the King James Bible is a pure version and translation in all its normal historical editions.
Typographical errors don’t invalidate the version and translation of the KJB. But you wouldn’t want to use unstandard and bad printing when you have the option for good. The word “pure” in “Pure Cambridge Edition” is talking about correct spelling and typography. It is a different measure or kind of purity than when talking about one version/translation versus another.
WHAT ARE EDITIONS?
Daniels says that the Pure Cambridge Edition is one that matches up to 12 particular verses having particular lettering or spelling. While this is fine for detecting what is a Pure Cambridge Edition, the reality is that there are whole lists of specific differences between current editions. See bibleprotector.com/editions
There are many editions of the King James Bible since 1611, and so on analysis there are many variations is spellings, punctuation and so on. And if you start by comparing the first King James Bible ever printed in 1611 with any other edition, you will always find variations here and there.
None of these are causing the loss of God’s words, but obviously correcting typographical errors and the standardising of the spelling and grammar has been a good thing.
There are a line of corrections from 1611, 1629, 1638 to 1769 and beyond. The Pure Cambridge Edition is an approximately 20th century correction of the Cambridge adoption of the 1769 editorial corrections (which took place in the 1830s under Thomas Turton).
DO CAPITAL LETTERS MATTER?
Daniels goes on to have a look at some of the examples, particularly around the fact that the Pure Cambridge Edition is getting the word “Spirit” right when it is capital or lower case. A difference in capital or lower case has a difference in meaning.
In fact, in general, changing a word in any document may change some sort of meaning. Not that the actual word of God is changed, but the potential for misunderstanding arising from an editorial inconsistency is the issue.
It is obvious we wouldn’t accept a typo like “Jesus” for “Judas” or vice versa.
Doctrines or doctrinal precision matters, and that is why words, lower case and capital matter.
Saying that the case of letters does not matter, or that because in Greek the Bible was written in all capitals (uncials) or all lower case (minuscules) … the Bible has been translated into English, and clearly capitals do matter.
Would Daniels accept a King James Bible printed without capitals? Would he accept one that always put “god” instead of “God”? I don’t think so.
SOME OTHER EXAMPLES
Daniels is not understanding the differences in words, so when he comes to the examples of “flieth” versus “fleeth”, “further” versus “farther” and “bewray” versus “betray”, he thinks there is no real difference.
But there is. I have written about these before, and information is also in my booklet “Glistering Truths”.
Simply, the word “flieth” means both to flee and to fly away, as the cankerworm turns into a flying insect. Whereas “fleeth” does not have the meaning about the flying insect.
Again, “further” means more far, whereas “farther” simply means a choice out of two options, the nearer and the farther. Correct grammar dictates proper usage.
And as for “bewray” this is a word from Anglo-Saxon meaning to convey inadvertently. Whereas “betray” if from French, and means to trade for. Very evidently these are two different words with two different meanings.
Daniels needs to recognise that distinct words have distinct meanings. To ignore or deny this is simply anti-intellectualism.
IS DANIELS SERIOUS THAT HE WON’T USE AN EDITION CALLED PURE?
Daniels said, rather strangely, that he wouldn’t use an edition called “pure”.
Would he use an edition with no name?
Would he use a mid-twentieth century printed Cambridge KJB?
Conversely, would he use a grossly misprinted edition? What if it was called “The Grossly Misprinted Edition”?
Many Christians who love and use the King James Bible have realised that words and letters do matter, accuracy matters, and there is everything good about everyone using the same edition and knowing that it has every editorial choice right.
The answers here address any concerns, clear misconceptions and really explain why it is good to use a particular standard edition of the King James Bible.
Ecclesiastes 12:10, 11
10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
Modern translation advocates often argue that the King James Bible has hard words or doesn’t make sense, and that people should use newer translations. One modernist supporter said that there were dead words in the King James Bible.
I responded to him saying:
The underlying premise that there are words which are essentially “meaningless” in the King James Bible is false. Words have meanings, and those meanings are understood by believers as they study properly. Seeing as Scripture is God’s word, then of course there are some difficult words, but the special thing about “hard” words in the King James Bible is that they are needed and communicate exactly the message of the original. To smear the King James Bible with these fabrications that its words are misunderstood is unfair, and is a blatant attempt to demote the truth.
He replied that nobody is saying words are meaningless. He said that to a modern speaker, words like “let”/”letteth” are perceived as meaning allow, because that is how that word is used today. He said that there is nothing to indicate to the modern speaker any other meaning. He said that the KJB translators use the word “let” to mean prevent, which, he said, is the total opposite. On this basis he argued that the wording of the KJB should be updated.
Here is my lengthy reply:
Your argument still is that the words of the KJB should be changed because they are on occasion meaningless or misleading in meaning to modern speakers. However everything about your view is refutable. Here’s a correct and logical approach:
1. The King James Bible is not confusing if you understand it
2. You can understand it because:
a. God helps you
b. You can learn
3. God’s will is to make His truth known and he has given people capacity to receive it
4. The standard of truth or measure of goodness is not “modern readers” but God
THEREFORE “modern readers” need to be transformed in their thinking
On one side you are exalting the modern reader’s inability to understand properly, while on the other side I am exalting God’s ability to have the willing understand properly.
Like the “woke” people, you set yourself to speak on behalf of the poor ignorant folk who don’t know what “let” means, yet are you unwilling to help people understand so they can keep the King James Bible? Why would God, whose knowledge is high, have supplied you as the best teachers and conveyors of His truth by supplying new and simplified translations, when the conceptual accuracy and communication of God is so high, particular and exact? Your Bible teaching must therefore be equivalent to keeping doctrine at explanations for three year olds, rather than at the precision of every word, syllable and letter of the KJB. You simply don’t know what nuances and depths of doctrines you are missing out on. The worst thing about this is most of the leading people of your side want it that way. Too often as well it is convenient to claim to adhere to the “real” truth in Hebrew/Greek because that allows the translator/interpreter to massage the meaning. Whatever happened to God having His actual meaning, absolute truth?
By the way, the word “let” does mean something like allow, as in 1 Cor. 10:12 “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” What you meant to say was, there are occasions where the same looking word may have other meanings. That’s called homography. What you seem to be saying is that homography must be eliminated because “modern readers” may not know when it is happening.
SOLUTION: Turn modern readers into Biblical readers/hearers.
HOW TO KNOW THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
It is important to have the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible, since there are correctors (e.g. publishers) who have changed some aspects of King James Bible texts. The final form of the King James Bible is the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), which conforms to the following:
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
This is the list to use to identify the PCE. A fuller list can be seen here which compares editions: bibleprotector.com/editions
Now, what about something like where some PCEs have “Zarah” and some “Zerah” at Gen. 46:12? Copies of the PCE have both spellings of that, it’s a variation within PCEs. The quick answer is that the correct form can be seen by checking bibleprotector.com, that is, “Zerah”.
A PCE is defined as a KJB edition text which follows a small set of criteria, e.g. 1 John 5:8 lower case “s” on “spirit”, etc. (The list of 12 criteria above.)
There is also a “critical” correct exemplary PCE text, i.e. that which is supplied on the bibleprotector.com website.
Thus, a PCE copy you might own might have some printing mistake somewhere, like a full stop missing or something somewhere, for example, a copy printed by Collins, from 1959 Iona Octavo let’s say.
Here we are defining Edition (with a capital “E”) as conformity to the set of editorial choices (i.e. the PCE) while an edition (I.e. a print run in a style for a certain publisher in a certain size a certain year) may exhibit some variation unique (an erratum like a missing full stop) or in minority (like the variation in the spelling of the word “Zarah” which goes across various printings). Remember, the PCE by Bible Protector resolves and presents what is actually standard, but yes I have used Collins Bibles a lot in Church, because they are PCE, not because their printing is “immaculate”.
(I now use Church Bible Publishers printed Bibles at Church, personally, I use a Large Print Turquoise Reference, they are PCE and they are well bound.)
Now, to get onto the quick way I might check a Bible. Say I visit a book sale, a second hand book store or whatever. To make a quick check, I will see the publisher, if it is Collins or Cambridge, I am expecting it likely to be correct. For a quick check, I don’t go through a huge list, I just do this:
1. Front Page is King James Bible
2. Ezra 2:26 says “Geba” not “Gaba”
3. 1 John 5:8 says “spirit” not “Spirit”
Yes? Then I will likely purchase. (Hopefully you can get a person to check for you if you are buying online.)
The Cambridge Standard Text is a different edition, it was made by Cambridge after it purchased Eyre and Spottiswoode, and it does not have italics. Cambridge also has some other editions, like Concord, French Morocco Large Print, Windsor and post-PCE Cameo. Those printings from the 1980s onward will likely fail the test at least at 1 John 5:8.
In the past, the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) Bibles, and British & Foreign Bible Society Bibles (BFBS) were PCEs printed by Cambridge, often at their Pitt Press, which is distinct from their University printing location. Because of this, Pitt TBS and Pitt BFBS copies can differ to other Cambridge printings of the PCE in a few places, like making into small capitals “ELI ELI LAMA SABACTHANI” etc.
Now to actual indications of types of printings and presentations of the range of 32mo, 24mo, 16mo, 12mo, 8vo (Octavo), 4to (Quarto) and if you can ever find Folio sized Cambridge printed KJBs from 1928 to 1984 are likely PCE. These also come in a series of names like gemstones, i.e. Ruby, Amethyst, Diamond, Sapphire, Emerald, Turquoise, etc. And also the beloved Cameo. Further, Pitt Press has its Pitt Octavo (Brevier), Pitt Brevier (no italics) and Pitt Minion Bold Figure Reference styles.
Likewise Collins, and sometimes World, and sometimes known as HarperCollins, have a similar array of PCEs in those sizes, 32mo etc. up to Family Bible (quarto) and Lectern Bible (Folio) size. These will include Iona, New Brevier, Fontana, Popular (from their Clear-Type Press) etc. These will be dated from approx. 1932 to 2007 at least. Not every single Collins printing was PCE, but most were.
Incidentally, Cambridge printed for SGM Publishing House, the Mormons (as well as through their Baker Books branding in the USA) and Collins printed for the Freemasons, Presbyterian Church, etc. Thus, you can find PCEs with those brandings on them, of course, I like to re-cover those Bibles.
At the back of Cambridge-printed Bibles are little letter and numbers, on the last page, which gives the print run amount, the printing press letter and the year in the 20th century, e.g. 120 F 57, one of my many Ruby Sunday School style 24mos, meaning, 120,000 printed at machine F in 1957, while another is 150 G 58.
Collins have a Licence printed in the front just after the title page, the date at the bottom just before the signed name will indicate the year, e.g. nineteen forty-five, and also tell you how many were to be printed. It seems that the 1950s was especially a high volume printing period.
Mark Ward has been making videos which pretend to explain what words in the King James Bible mean.
The problem is that his starting point is not to respect the King James Bible, nor to uphold Biblical English, nor to discern the correctness of its “glistering truths”. Rather, Mark Ward’s real agenda is to undermine the KJB, to put it in a bad light, and to present new translations as better.
In Mr Ward’s mission to attack the King James Bible, he argues the following: “I want to teach you what language is like, the ways language changes. I want you to see how random and varied those changes are. Language change is a fog that creeps over a landscape, leaving some bushes in full clear view, and other obscured, or half obscured, or 32.8% obscured. Language change is gradual and nebulous. We aren’t likely to wake up one day and discover that, oh, English has taken a great leap forward, or backward. Not unless there’s some major geo-political catastrophe that alters our linguistic situation considerably.” (Video on Moisture.)
Notice, now, that his doctrine is not a Biblical doctrine, but a doctrine of men. His view on language, or what he thinks about the King James Bible’s language, is entirely natural, unspiritual and in opposition to the truth.
Let’s begin with a few Biblical truths.
1. God is in control.
Who declares the end from the beginning in Isaiah 46?
Who raises up kings? Daniel 4:32b states, “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will”. Daniel 2:21 says, “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding”.
2. God is in control of language.
God divided the languages at Babel.
The Spirit gave the tongues on the day of Pentecost and beyond.
The fact that English was raised up as a receptacle for the Gospel and evangelistic is a truth shown in Historicist Prophecy, and by Providence.
Mr Ward’s starting point is Infidelity. He has accepted the logical outcomes of Enlightenment philosophy. They had a deistic view, that God is like a watchmaker who made the clockwork universe, and now things continue in their own cycles without His direct input. Even worse, such people will reason that the natural processes are somehow the work of God, and they see errors, random chaos, uncertainty, perplexities everywhere. This, they think, is the work of God.
“With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.” (Psalm 18:26). Because such people expect to see mistakes and errors, and think God is essentially choosing to outwork in that fashion, they only see mistakes and errors, and never a pure Bible or a divinely raised up and guided English language. They do not see Biblical English. So, of course, people like Mark Ward will mock and scoff at the King James Bible’s language, they will smugly make their little pronouncements against it. But such attacks are dangerous, and in fact invoke divine retribution. Teaching little ones to offend was seen as a heinous sin in the teachings of our Lord and Saviour.