Someone asked me about the Cambridge, Oxford and London, and older and newer spelling difference of “rasor” versus “razor”. The question is, does it really matter?

If you are going to really believe that every word of God is pure and that jots and tittles really matter, then you will want precision.

So is it really important to have “rasor” and why should we consider the Cambridge spelling to be correct? The answer could be, even if it doesn’t matter (I personally can’t see a doctrine hanging on the spelling of the word), the point that the rest of the Edition that has that spelling is right, we go right along and accept rasor as well.

But for the argument of etymology and propriety. In Middle English, the French influence, it was rasour, so the z spelling is more recent.

Now, if we go one way, we will find really big differences which are important, like between “intreat” and “entreat”.

FORM	SENSE	DIRECTION
intreat	ask, please	toward will/favour
entreat	treat, deal with	toward person/condition

But in the other direction, in something which ordinarily wouldn’t matter, we ought to side with the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.

By the way, the spelling “ought” not “aught” is not in the Pure Cambridge Edition. The mid-20th century London Edition used the spelling “aught”. If it is all the same one way or the other way, that’s one thing. But the spelling convention in the Bible (coming from 1611) has been “ought”.

“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.” (Deut. 4:2).

See that word in bold in that statement.