Category Archives: Review

David Daniels’ confusion about pure words


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.


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.


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

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).


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.


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.


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.

Does power corrupt?

Lord Acton

Lord Acton has famously stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men …”

People take this statement as the highest wisdom in politics, and various Christian writers and thinkers proclaim that this statement is an essential truth.

But is it? After all, Lord Acton was a Roman Catholic of the strongest variety.

Roman Catholicism and much of Protestantism erroneously teaches that the saintly Christian man is still substantially evil, flawed and under the yoke of sinfulness. Even if so to a lesser degree. But the Scripture shows:

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10).

“Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” (John 8:34).

What does that say of Lord Acton’s ultramontane views and his contemporary powerful popes? It is not the power that corrupts, but bad men, when they obtain power, do bad on a grander scale.

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2).

Therefore, it is not authority, not wielding power which corrupts. It is sin which corrupts. But if a person is righteous, then, as the Scripture in Proverbs 29:2 quoted above states, the people rejoice.

In other words, it is good for good people to have power, and maximum power must therefore lead to maximum good.

Constantine or Theodosius did much good, as did the Protestant monarchs. Nothing has changed in this principle, therefore it is highly desirable that good people be elevated to good positions.

“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.” (1 Samuel 2:8).

So those supposed Christian political thinkers who raise up the human ideology over the Spirit-led Biblical view are either deceived or, worse, deceivers.

Here’s a quote showing the mistaken consequences of reasoning that power must be in some way corrupt:

“Since power corrupts and government power tends to naturally corrupt, if a society safeguards freedom of speech, its government becomes far more accountable to the people. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out and criticise the government when they think it is going awry. Consequently, freedom of speech ought to be viewed as a fundamental mechanism against the concentration of power.” (Augusto Zimmermann).

The flawed logic is that government power must be corrupt, and that the only way to deal with this is a form of libertarianism. In other words, allowing unBiblical and anarchic licence to say whatever is essentially a justification for anti-authoritarianism.

It is ridiculous to posit that the concentration of power is a bad thing, else one must reject the rule of Christ Jesus Himself! And if this is meant only for earthly government, then when shall Christian influence ever be allowed, for by such flawed reasoning, Christian government should be banned, which is the exact intention of Infidelity (consider, for example, its rigorous anti-Christian practises in the French Revolution, and to its consequences in the Social Revolution which permeated the English-speaking world from the late 1960s).

Mere socialist democracy, separation of powers by dilution, rejection of official religion and secularist removal of all religion in governance is, by its very nature, and in its origins and in its consequences, complete warfare against traditional Protestant Christianity.

The Gospel does not require some arbitrary grant of “freedom” of one sort or another to empower people to either speak out against “oppression” or else, to have the right to preach righteousness and “proselytise”.

Let us therefore turn to the higher and better way, that with the righteous, the truly ascending and attaining Christian, power is to be used well.

Christianity which is surrendered to at least the principles of Infidelity is already on its slow and tedious journey towards what is called the Left. The fact that almost all those on the so-called Christian Right have embraced the fundamental erroneous foundations of erroneous thought is deeply problematic, and requires empowered Christian action to bring Christian ideology to the sound foundation of Scripture and spiritual certainty.

Fighting the cultural war

Bill Muehlenberg runs a website

His views are fairly typical of serious Protestants from recent years.

On his site, he has tried to attack Infidelity. He has done this largely by confronting various social issues. This is like trying to kill a hydra by cutting at its heads.

Here’s how the battle used to be illustrated by Protestants:

This image from the old Creation Science Foundation should have put “Infidelity” as the foundation of the bad side, and added the flag of evolution to the castle. On the other side, “God’s word” is the actual foundation.

The way to really defeat the issues is to get the right foundation (on our side) and to strike at the foundation of the other side.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6a).

Continue reading


A certain Pentecostal leader in Victoria, who claims to be an apostle, recently wrote that Australia was largely Christian. He wasn’t speaking by faith, he wasn’t making a declaration … he actually thinks that most citizens are actually Christian.

On the other hand, Greg Sheridan, a conservative journalist, has written, “The Christian churches now need to reconceive of themselves as representing a distinct and not all that big minority (of practising Christians). They should conduct themselves as a self-confident minority, seeking to win conversion through example and persuasion”. Indeed, Mr Sheridan knows that Christianity is near extinct, but instead of actually fighting to win, he thinks it should fight to survive. That’s probably why Mr Sheridan has decided that he would “win” if he joined the side promoting same sex marriage, rather than to come along side with Pastor Margaret Court’s stand against it.

This new conservatism is completely weak and misguided, which is exactly why there is a Right resurgence and reactionary movements like the Alt-Right.

In Part One of this series, we looked at the call for Roman Catholics who not only stand up for good values, but who must come out into proper Protestant Christianity. In Part Two we looked at different approaches by believing Protestants. They have said, “We need a new Reformation.” I remember getting goosebumps when Ken Ham declared that uncompromisingly in Sydney years ago. Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, Presbyterians and any other believer need to stop compromising with the world, we need to seek a mass movement and outpouring of the Spirit on a ground level while also believing for doctrinal unity in the Church and Christian leadership at a top political level.

Jesus has placed ministry offices in the Church, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-16).

This requires outpouring of the Spirit, because there is no way that we can get our doctrine right and get into proper unity without Him.

I believe doctrinal unity of the believers is possible. I believe it is promised. I believe that we should let God do the work in us that are able to have it. But barely any Christian seems to believe that. Doctrinal unity is based upon the Word and Spirit, not on a sword or compromise.

As for the outpouring of the Spirit, then all Pentecostals who profess to believe that (many worldly and compromised Pentecostals are ineligible) should see that there is a positive future for believers prior to the return of Christ in the rapture, not one of near defeat.

“Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” (Matthew 24:45, 46).

Notice that the promise of this passage is that the Christian is to be in leadership, the Christian is to be able to convert nations and systematically be reaching the normal person.

People have talked about supporting some secular ruler whom they like, whether Trump or Putin or any other hero of the Alt-Right. But if we are to have such heroes, they must be Christian in the true sense, and most importantly, it is foolish to try to get a Christian leader in without having a change in the culture. Constantine was able to come into power as a Christian ruler because there was a strong (albeit persecuted) Christian movement among the normal people.

We have the essence of correct culture being afforded to us, in the remnants of the ideology from Britain and America. Now the Christians in Australia need to assert genuine Christianity and reactivate what now is in pieces into a coherent whole, an Australian Christian culture.

Not yet her day. How long “not yet?”
There comes the flush of violet!
And heavenward faces, all aflame
With sanguine imminence of morn,
Wait but the sun-kiss to proclaim
The Day of the Dominion born.
Prelusive baptism!—ere the natal hour
Named with the name and prophecy of power.
(The Dominion, J. B. Stephens).