Category Archives: General

Pure Cambridge Edition not debunked, despite the opinion of a tiny handful

Someone made a video attempting to debunk the Pure Cambridge Edition. They and commenters underneath the video on youtube made the following statements.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

All these claims are answerable, refutable and really they are wrong claims.

Here are the answers.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

ANSWER ONE. The King James Bible as a version and a translation is pure, so obviously all editions of that version and translation are pure, because all editions have the same text and translation! The person here is mixing up the concept of editorial purity with textual and translational purity. Editorial purity is about having no typographical errors and having standard spellings, etc.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

ANSWER TWO. The person here is really objecting to the idea that one spelling is insisted upon, when places like this have had variations within the history of the KJB. Some editions have “Gaba” at Nehemiah 7:30, others have “Geba”. Also, in 1626 a London edition had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, and so did a 1750 London edition. Going to the Hebrew to look at these places is subjective (which Hebrew anyway?). And since editorial work includes regularisation, this is the likely reason why both Ezra and Nehemiah have “Geba”. See also

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

ANSWER THREE. I’ve never claimed that either the making of the KJB nor its editing was done by inspiration. And like the maker of the video, I agree that words in italics are inspired words, but I’ve never said that the italics were placed by inspiration. I do, of course, think that the italics as we now have them are rightly placed in that font style.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

ANSWER FOUR. The italics of 1611 have been edited over the years. But attacking 1 John 2:23’s italics would be to attack Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition and many others. The fact is that the italics have been improved after 1611, which exhibited various editorial issues and mistakes in places, so of course we should understand that many editions to this day match 1769 and the PCE at this place.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

ANSWER FIVE. The word “and” editorially belongs in Exodus 23:23, it was there in 1612, 1616 and the 1629, it was there in italics in Cambridge’s editions from the 1830s. Various other editions did not have the word “and” there, it is true, but using the Hebrew to prove anything about this is misguided. Instead, we should trust that the word “and” is an implied sense in the Hebrew, and that’s why it is there in English, in italics. The PCE is not wrong, nor are other historical editions, to have this.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

ANSWER SIX. It is true that CUP has not used the wording “PCE” nor did it actually create the electronic documents on the bibleprotector website, BUT there were printings of the Bible with the word “Cambridge” on them, in Pica Antiqua (quarto), Turquoise 8vo, (New) Brevier 8vo, (Pitt) Minion, Cameo 16mo, Sapphire 16mo, Ruby 24mo and Ruby Amethyst — printed from around the late 1920s to 1985 — and these printings all had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, “and” (in italics) “the Hivites” at Exodus 23:23, “spirit” lower case at Acts 11:12; 11:28 and 1 John 5:8, etc. — and bearing the printer’s names of Walter Lewis and Brooke Crutchley. Do Cambridge University Press deny the existence of their own work? What were they changing in 1985 when they stated that they were changing 1 John 5:8 to “Spirit”? And while I said from the late 1920s, in fact, there are Cambridge Bibles from the World War One era that are almost PCEs, except for a few places, like having “spirit” when it should be “Spirit” at Mark 1:12. At some point under Walter Lewis those changes were made, leading to decades of an Edition that Cambridge should go back to printing today in all its offerings.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

ANSWER SEVEN. The word “spirit” was lower case in Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28 in 1769, before 1769, after 1769, in Cambridge printings through much of the 20th century before I was ever born, so obviously my Pentecostal “biases” had nothing to with that. Furthermore, there are many verses in all editions of the KJB that have the word “spirit” relating to the work of God and it is obviously nothing to do with to do with Pentecostalism or biases. This is just how many historical editions of the KJB read.

The fact is that I don’t invoke any specific Pentecostal doctrine or necessitate some Pentecostal practice to be able to know and understand why the word “spirit” has been used in certain places throughout the KJB. And seeing as jots and tittles matter (jot and tittle are English words in the English dictionary that have English definitions) then it follows that the capital or lower case in God’s word is important, and that the PCE is presenting an editorial accurate form of the KJB.

Of course the Holy Ghost is directly involved when the word “spirit” is used in lower case in these examples, though it is about His effects and knowledge in the human heart. For a good overview read this short article:

IN CONCLUSION the PCE and its history have not been debunked, and the opinions of a small handful who are trying to say something is just mistaken. The PCE is a valid edition of the KJB, and the PCE is an accurate, acceptable and proper standard to represent the KJB now and into the future.

Why is lower case “s” on “spirit” right?

The question is asked, “Why is having a lower case ‘s’ on the word ‘spirit’ right at 1 John 5:8 (and Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28)?

Here’s an answer I gave someone on a comment on a youtube video:

There’s a lot of info on my bibleprotector website about this, but there is a distinction between the person of the Holy Ghost and His outworking/function/effect particularly in human knowledge.

For example, in Joel it says God will pour out “my spirit” but in Acts 2 Peter says “of my Spirit”. Thus, “spirit” is of the “Spirit”.

Notice also 1 Cor. 2:12, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” And again, Prov. 1:23, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

Simply, if you look at this use of “spirit” as received knowledge from the Holy Ghost, you would get how it is being used, like Exodus 31:3 “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”.

Importantly, the capital and lower case distinction is there before and in Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition etc. With this understanding in mind, you can then see how it was and is rightly “spirit” lower case at: Acts 11:12; Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8.

The Oxfords in the late 19th century changed from Dr Blayney’s “spirit” to “Spirit” in some places, and when the Concord Cambridge was made in the 1950s, it too followed Oxford. Then from 1985 Cambridge changed normal editions at 1 John 5:8 and in the coming years beyond that silently changed the places at Acts as well. In fact, by the year 2000 some of its new Bibles available for sale still had “spirit” lower case at (at least one of) the Acts places.

Then, an article was written in the Trinitarian Bible Society’s April 2013 magazine, they said that they were going to review all of the places throughout the KJB that ALL editions still rightly had lower case “spirit”, such as at, Genesis 6:3, Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 35:31, Numbers 11:29, Numbers 24:2, 27:18, Nehemiah 9:20, 30, Job 26:13, 27:3, Psalm 51:11, 12, 104:30, 106:33, 139:7, Psalm 143:10, Proverbs 1:23, Isaiah 4:4, 11:2, 34:16, 40:7, 42:1, 44:3, 59:21, Ezekiel 36:27, 37:1, 27:14, 39:29, Joel 2:28, 29, Micah 2:7, 3:8, Zechariah 4:6, 7:12, John 4:23, 6:63, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 8, 12:18, Philippians 1:27, 3:3, 1 Peter 4:6, 14, 1 John 4:6 etc.

I don’t know what exactly played out, but I would hope they would come back to their roots and to the proper and distinct usage, as was present with Dr Blayney in 1769 and the 20th century Cambridge tradition (i.e. the Pure Cambridge Edition), with the standard use of “spirit” at the places I mentioned.

In short, there are plenty of examples where the word “spirit” is used, and spirit is directly connected with the Holy Ghost, it is His effect and impartation that comes into our soul/understanding. Of course other uses of the word “spirit” include the spiritual realm and of course human, angelic and evil spirits. When “Spirit” is used, obviously that means the Holy Ghost.

Finally, in Romans 8 it says in verse 6 to be “spiritually minded” yet the chapter is talking about the Holy Ghost, and so I want to make it clear that the word “spirit” at places like 1 John 5:8 is not a rejection of the Holy Ghost, but is completely based on Him. Particular knowledge is from God.

We have gone beyond 1769

With an array of issues in 1769, like “Beer-sheba, Sheba” in Joshua 19:2, or missing out on part of a verse in Revelation 18:22, we are grateful we have a better edition that gets everything right, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition.

We don’t use a 1769. No one does. Well, unless you’d use these ones. But you shouldn’t, you should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Here are two examples of a 1769 Folio:


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.

Timothy Berg answered

Recently, Timothy Berg and Mark Ward made a video, and Timothy put a post up on his Facebook page about it.

I commented as follows:

There are multiple statements and implications from both The Translators to the Reader and the Epistle Dedicatory which point to the idea that the KJB makers thought their work was right, good and perfect. (Not made by special inspiration, but due to providence.)
Sadly, Mark Ward likes to engage in word games which includes trying to make out as if words written in 1611 do not mean what they mean.
Also, since Mark Ward has an agenda of undermining the correctness and reliability of the KJB, his motivation would be to ensure that the KJB men are not to be read as saying what they said, but perversely saying what Mark Ward wishes them to say (i.e. the opposite).
“Remember the advice of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great fair, and to seek to make markets afterward”.

Then Timothy Berg made a number of claims in two lengthy posts, beginning with this, I quote him here in italic typeface: I would love to see these “multiple statements and implications” that point to the idea that the KJB Translators “thought their work was … perfect.”

To which I made two replies (and I’ve corrected a few typos I made on Facebook):

The KJB makers state, “For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, … the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.”
Their translation was to keep that which was good from other translations, and to improve upon them, even making the analogy of gold being bright, rubbed and polished, hence, a picture of supremacy above all others at least, if not perfection.
And, again, they did not speak in the relativist terms of modernists, but spoke of having the truth set in place, in other words, full accuracy, and that surely is perfection of translation.
They write, “that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”.
Now however you read, if one “more exact translation”, or “one more” “exact translation”, the meaning of the former means it was supreme to others, the latter means one more translation only, which is the exact translation. In either case, the word “exact” speaks of perfection, and if the KJB is “more exact” or else the “exact”, that is surely higher than and certainly counter to the view of modernists.
They also state, “And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby”.
From this we can see they did not expect to fail but rather see the increase, and that the conclusion being both the KJB and the fruits it would produce, is treated in a proto-millenarian light.
They write, “So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.
Clearly, they disagreed with the Romanists, but the accusation is telling, for though apparently poor instruments, the outworking was to make God’s truth more and more known, meaning the level of increase and of alignment to accuracy, and supremacy, is obvious.
They also state, “Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.”
Notice here the reference to finishing the work of translation holistically. If Tyndale began, the KJB men finished. They use the word perfected, meaning that they thought it, well, perfect.
If the Bishops’ or Geneva was good, theirs was better, and better means superior. The KJB surmounted all. Since it perfected the former translations, it now cannot be improved upon.
Sometimes, those who have set themselves against the KJB like to quote this part: “Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
This is not to be read to doubt the KJB maker’s work, but shows the principle that the KJB men themselves following, in consulting the Fathers, other translations, etc., to decided upon their work, and then, to set the variation in the margin so that the reader could check their work.
The KJB men spoke of “finding out of the sense”, which is really the opposite of the modernist approach. The modernist wants there to be multiplicity and only statistical certainty rather than singularity and absolute certainty. But the KJB men presented their work as the sense found out, so to speak, and as the clarification of doubtful places. (They didn’t hide these, they placed the variant translations in the margin.)
The translators conclude, “O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation.”
A good, exact and perfect translation is indeed a great thing. To have the word of God properly in English is a great salvation indeed.
And, “It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great fair, and to seek to make markets afterwards”.
That is, upon having opportunity to partake of that which is actually providentially ordained of God, some foolishly have rejected the KJB’s rightness and perfection, seeking now to obtain after the day of visitation. Thus, the KJB men spoke prophetically of what the modernists have done, in that they say that all translations are but imperfect and having neglected the KJB, are now floundering in the famine of modernism and its idol of imperfection onlyism.

And the second post immediately following:

The modernist arguments against the KJB’s rightness, goodness, exactness and perfection are refutable.

  1. It is argued by modernists that because the originals were viewed as perfect, a translation could not be perfect.
    However, the KJB men consistently treat the word translated as representing the very Word.
    Decades afterwards, the Westminster Puritans stated, “But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”
    Thus, the view was that the translation represented the Scripture, for it was clearly the translation used in worship, etc., and the translation was called “Scriptures”.
    Seeing that the Puritans of the 1650s only officially printed the KJB, that is again providential evidence of what translation was accepted as representing, i.e. really being, Scripture.
  2. It is argued that the fact of “errors of translation” existing in former Protestant translations somehow negates any translation is, or that any translation could be, perfect. (And since Romanists said that the Vulgate was a perfect translation, surely their being wrong must make that any claim for a Protestant is wrong also.)
    I have in the previous post quoted the KJB men arguing that their work corrected former errors of translation.
    The view that essentially no translation can be perfect is a modernist maxim based on Enlightenment philosophy.
    And the Catholics were wrong to claim both textual and translational accuracy for the Vulgate, for they claimed inspiration for it, but the KJB men’s argument for the goodness, rightness, exactness, perfection and supremacy (to other translations) of their translation is based on a providentialist argument (or really providentialist matrix of arguments, in brief, that God is at work in history, that they are by their works bringing about improvement and that they believe that the good hand of the Lord was upon them, etc).
    The KJB men state, “we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”
    (Thus, the reason why the Koran and the Vulgate are not perfect is because the KJB is. Whereas a modernist, formulating upon Enlightenment ideas, will say, “Translations of necessity have errors [so therefore all claims for] Textual Absolutism [and translational absolutism is and] was mistaken.”)
  3. That the KJB men identified “spots” in former translations is not a tacit admission of their expecting “spots” in their own work. They simply do not imply this is the case in any way any where in their Preface or Epistle.
    Instead, our interlocutor labours the point that Hebrew and Greek are being the sources of English translation, this being a point no one denies.
    The providentialist view is that even though Protestants can be found here and there to say that they think that Hebrew and Greek are masters to the English, the result has been that the KJB has become the sole heir. This is something which all the manifestations of Providence reveal.
    Whether some translator felt anything in the moment of doing his work is irrelevant. That he believed something, that grain of a seed that translating under King James a good thing, this has flourished to a tree which has far outgrown, indeed caused the entire supersuccession of, the former Hebrew and Greek masters.

Answers to questions about the King James Bible

1. Is the KJB the original Bible?

No, but it is the final one.

2. Why do they call it the King James Bible?

Because it was authorised by King James I and printed in 1611 under his authority.

3. Is the King James Bible accurate? Is the KJB good?

Yes, the King James Bible is based on the historical Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. It is based on the majority of Greek texts which representative copies were collated and printed in the 16th century in what is called the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible builds on some other Protestant versions, and is considered the final text.

Yes, the King James Bible is a highly accurate translation that exactly presents the original languages in English.

Unlike modern versions and translations made as influenced by Enlightenment-based assumptions, the KJB has been well accepted by many Christians for many years.

4. What religion is the KJB?

Christian and Protestant.

5. Is the KJB Catholic? Is the KJV used by Catholics?

The KJB is not Catholic but can and is used by Catholics.

6. Why did King James change the Bible?

King James revised former translations to get an exactly correct Bible. He didn’t actually do it, but he ordered scholars and church leaders to do it. It was printed in 1611, and went on to displace all other Bibles in use.

7. What books did King James remove from the Bible?

None. The Apocrypha isn’t commonly printed, but that is not considered canonical Scripture.

8. Who made the KJB?

A large number of scholars and church leaders under King James.

9. Is the KJB inspired? Is the KJB perfect?

The King James Bible was not made by special inspiration, but because of it being at the right place and at the right time, people were able to make a good translation. Always a few people try to say there are mistakes here or there, but they say this largely because of the influence of Enlightenment-based reasoning. In fact the KJB is perfect, exact and precise. The King James Bible translators themselves indicated that they thought their work was right.

10. Why is the KJB so popular?

Mainly because it has been used by lots of Protestants for a long time, and it has been considered the standard, and is commonly used by committed Christians.

Believers and good works

The Word and Spirit movement has two sides of errors to deal with.

On one side, those who are so aware of the law of God, yet do not understand the message of salvation properly. A variety of traditional and mainline denominations represent salvation as if Christians are barely saved, as though a Christian is a forgiven sinner in the present tense.

On the other side are those who say they are so in the Spirit that they need not obey standards, hold doctrines or submit to any kind of constraints. Apparently, in the Spirit, they are free to do anything. All sins are forgiven so almost all things become permissible, as though Christians may call themselves righteous regardless of what they do.

Both these extremes are wrong, and both present dangers and lead people into error. On one side, a person may sin, be aware of it, but say it is because he is a sinner and console himself that God will overlook it. On the other side, a person may sin, be ware of it, but say that he is justified and the devil is just trying to condemn him with feelings of guilt. Both these views are extreme errors and are very troubling.


One famous Presbyterian minister wrote, “Christians have nothing to be smug about; we are not righteous people trying to correct the unrighteous. As one preacher said, “Evangelism is just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.” The chief difference between the believer and the unbeliever is forgiveness. The only thing that qualifies a person to be a minister in the name of Christ is that that person has experienced forgiveness and wants to tell of it to others.”

This quote is wrong doctrine on so many levels. First, actual Christians should not be in pride, so they should not be “smug”. Second, the Bible teaches very clearly that Christians should judge. Judgment should be right, and it is good. Third, Christianity is all about correction, both against the world and within the Church.

Fourth, true Christianity elevates Christians to be sons of God, to be seated in heavenly places, so Christian evangelism is not being done by “beggars”. Rather, to be Christian is to be righteous, to be good, to be elevated. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is vast and stark.

Christ does not keep Christians in a beggarly condition, as salvation is of power to make the sinners righteous.

So then, Christians were sinners, but being saved, they are actually saved, not in the thing any more that was sending them to hell. As the old holiness preachers said, salvation is about saving people from doing the things that were damnable, not merely saving them from hell. Jesus came to save people from sin and from sinning.


There are those who teach in order to be saved, you don’t have to do anything. Apparently, no works are required at all. Since actually believing, or expending calories in praying aloud, or doing anything at all such as repenting of your former life is allegedly a “work”, they say that such things ought not be done.

Even though salvation is about submitting to the rule of Christ, there are those who deny that Jesus must be made one’s Lord.

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:9, 10).

So clearly “grace” is not without some reciprocal action on our part. Laying hold of salvation is actually required, it doesn’t just fall on us by chance, or by just thinking that you agree to it.

If one should confess the “Lord Jesus” then that means recognising his mastership and rule in your life.


As for Christian living, are we to obey God’s rules, or are we just “free in the Spirit” to do whatever we or allegedly He leads us to. (Allegedly He because it seems that in many cases people who live this way are really living after their own desires or listening to an evil spirit.)

The problem of no-effort and lack of sanctification has arisen in charismatic circles, and has robbed Christians of all kinds of blessings. Instead of growing up spiritually, this lying spirit will teach things like “you don’t have to tithe” and so on, which seems to accord with the satanic doctrine, “do as thou wilt”.

Being a son of God does not mean being free from obedience. When the Bible spoke of being free from the works of the law, it meant works to earn salvation. It did not mean that we should abandon standards or morality as Christians. On the contrary, the Bible states that we should “abound to every good work” (2 Cor. 9:8). Again, “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work” (Col. 1:10). And again, that God “Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.” (2 Thess. 2:17).

Proper sanctification is the process of actual continuous obedience to the Gospel, which is to say, that sanctification leads to holiness.


Those who really wish to make the cost of following Christ cheap, to have no apparently onerous requirements, are falling into the error of being lukewarm. Lukewarm Christianity has taken over much of Evangelicalism, and it is a form of Christianity that has minimum requirements, little prayer and little Bible reading, and probably non-committal Church attendance.

Satan has been very accommodating. The COVID-19 lockdowns were a perfect excuse for people to quit Church. Yet the Bible stated, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25a). And again, “And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62).

One Evangelical minister from Wales stated, “If you do not desire to be holy I do not see that you have any right to think that you are a Christian. It is a part of God’s design that we be prepared unto good works.”

The whole of Christianity is about the works we do because of Christ.