KJBOs and the Cambridge Edition

[bibleprotector]

Several years ago, I saw an article on the Touchet Baptist website called "Subtle changes in the KJB". I have a print out, but I can't find it on the internet any more.

However, this "Subtle changes" article has been superceeded by an article by Nic Kizziah, called "BELIEVERS BEWARE OF COUNTERFEIT KING JAMES BIBLES" you can see it at various places, such as, http://www.thebelieversorganization.org ... Bibles.htm

Kizziah's article certainly brings out a good line of reasoning, and he is really saying that there is a standard KJB, though he cannot define what it is. I would say that Kizziah is on the right track. He then gives a list of various words which are being modernised or altered in recent KJB editions. Kizzah supports the Cambridge Edition, and specifically attacks Cambridge for making wrong changes in their Standard Text Edition (which he claims was first released in 1993, the one I have seen in Melbourne was printed in 2002, and I saw the same one for sale in Sydney in about 2003.) Kizziah is exactly right in slamming this Standard Text Edition (which Norris has posted a huge list of alterations in this one).

Kizziah, while supporting the Cambridge Edition generally, has not understood that the Concord Cambridge Edition is not that old, and in fact, it is in places different to the Pure Cambridge Edition. (I have made a list of examples of differences between the PCE and the Concord in an earlier post in this thread.) Among other things, the Concord has capital "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8 against traditional 1769 Bibles. To understand this issue, also look at my statement at www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

Kizziah gives a list of Concord Cambridge readings, which in the main are also PCE readings, and are correct. But because he is using the recent Concord rather than the PCE, he is going to have the Oxfordised errors. He lists one in his checklist for supposedly "real" KJBs.

GENESIS 24:57
enquire (Kizziah's so called "real" KJB, actually Concord Cambridge, following Oxford, impure.)
inquire (Kizziah's so called "counterfeit" KJB reading, actually Pure Cambridge Edition reading, and found in 1769-conformed Cambridge Bibles all through the Victorian Era as well.)

Thus, Kizziah would incorrectly claim that the following pure renderings are "counterfeit":
Genesis 24:57, inquire
Exodus 23:23, and the Hivites
Numbers 6:5, rasor
2 Samuel 15:12, counseller
2 Samuel 18:29, Is [italic] the
Ezra 2:26, Geba
Ezra 6:4, expences
Jeremiah 32:5, prosper?
Ezekiel 47:3, ancles
Mark 2:1, Capernaum, after
Acts 11:12, spirit
Acts 11:28, spirit
Romans 4:18, nations; according
1 Corinthians 15:27, saith, all
1 John 5:8, spirit

Kizziah has not understood about the PCE, but seems to have taken the present Concord Cambridge as the "received edition" because it was currently available. (And it is also taken by Waite for his DEFINED KJB.) The problem here is that Cambridge is, as Kizziah points out, now corrupt. In fact, if they had bought a Collins Bible, even as late as 2003 (when Kizziah wrote the article), it would very likely be a PCE. What he and KJB people did not know was that Cambridge was already corrupted before 1993, because the production of the Concord Cambridge is the first sign of real corruption in the KJB. (They had been dancing with the devil for years with the RV and the New English Bible. They had enough sense to abandon Scrivener though, but like Norton said, institutional memory failed, and so they hired Norton to do a Balaam job.)

You see, it is only now, on the basis of a collective of understanding, that we can see what has happened, and how some KJB people have mistakenly held to the Concord Edition rather than the PCE.

See also my article: www.bibleprotector.com/THERE_IS_ONLY_ON ... _BIBLE.pdf

I have made various King James Bible people that they should be aware of my website, and this forum is for their learning too. As King James Bible people hear and look at these things, I hope that they are convinced that we do have a pure common standard, a particular edition of the King James Bible which is indeed correct to the jot and tittle, and that needs no revision so much as of one punctuation mark.

Knowledge of the history of the KJB has survived through time, though in specialised places. Kilbourne in the 1650s was studying KJBs, which had superseded the Geneva under Cromwell's Lord Protectorship. When Blayney edited his 1769 Edition, he knew to use a 1611 Edition, and some certain other editions as important. Thus, when Curtis challenged the Universities concerning their protection of the text, the Universities did not know much, but Oxford reprinted the 1611 Edition in 1833 to show how going back to the 1611 as "a standard" was a completely wrong idea, and promoted the idea of progressive purification, while in the 1830s Cambridge abandoned its 1762 text in favour of the 1769, without some of the Oxford peculiarities (particular spellings). But the information of the textual history was not scientifically studied until 1873, with Scrivener.

There were antiquarians, such as Wilson or Fry, who had done some studies into the old Bibles, and later, Dore. For years people had been talking about revising the KJB. Even Burgon agreed. And certainly, there needed to be a revision. But along came Westcott and Hort, and Scrivener was with them, though not fully agreeing. Besides this, Scrivener did a good thing, which was present facts and history, and he did a bad thing, which was interpret wrongly, and also edit the KJB in a perverted way. So his book in 1884 gave the first complex study of the textual history of the KJB. Lots of facts but also plenty of wrong interpretation.

Scrivener's work was held by some who studied the area, but already contemporaries, such as W. Smith and W. Aldis Wright rejected his interpretations. So rather than adopt Scrivener's text, even though it persisted in the Cambridge Bibles for Schools and the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Redpath's edit became the standard Cambridge text in normal Bibles. W. Aldis Wright did textual studies into the two 1611 editions (1909). But other than Scrivener, there was no real study in the textual history of the KJB, and the PCE increased.

With the rise of the distinct modern time King James Bible only movement, that is, Hills, Fuller and so forth, there was no real comment on any differences in editions. Hills mentioned that it was already a common attack on the King James Bible only position to be asked, "Which edition?" Hills said any. Hills said that no notable study had been undertaken in the textual history of the KJB after Scrivener, probably due to loss of intrest in the area.

However, because of the continual attack of "Which edition then is the standard?", and the deception of the NKJV, which claimed to be just another revision like 1769 or something, D. A. Waite spent 1985 checking his 1917 Scofield Oxford Edition against the 1611 reprint. Whereas Scrivener was interested in the 1611 to 1769 picture (and this is the use of Scrivener), Waite was looking at the present (or rather, near present) Oxford versus 1611 picture, that is, the a near present represnation of the Oxford as it had adapted from 1769. Thus, Waite's study was the most detailed in the KJBO movement, and the most notable since Scrivener. I suppose that Waite did not use Scrivener to gather his information from, because Scrivener was used by the modernists to attack the KJB, and Waite did his study independent from any existing lists. It seems that while Waite considered his Scofield to be "authoritative" at the time, though his position is very much now in favour of the Cambridge Edition, and he has used the Concord Cambridge Edition in his DEFINED KJB.

I should also mention that the 1833 Oxford reprint of the 1611 also showed variations and errors, including those from the 1613 edition, and that the two American Bible Society attempts to revise the KJB in the 1850s were aware both of this information, and of some slight differences that existed between various Victorian era publishers at that time.

From the late 1980s, several KJBO people have written about the differences between 1611 and the present KJB. Reagan wrote against the "myth" of early revisions. Ruckman wrote that any edition of the KJB was acceptable, with particular reference to the modernised American revision from the 1850s. I read all these articles in 2000, as well as one on "Subtle Changes". Later, in 2003 Kizziah wrote a more in depth article which basically attacked the recent Cambridge Bibles and accepted the Concord Cambridge. An authorised spokesperson from Bible Baptist Church Pensacola even said that the Cambridge Edition was to be preferred, though any edition of the KJB was acceptable.

Norris must have been doing his research in the 1990s too and beyond, but he was relying foremost on Scrivener.

I began my work in 2000. Some KJBOs deferred to Scrivener, and I have only heard Fuhrman doubt him after I had talked against Scrivener. I read talk by certain KJBOs about a 1852 American Revision, which is in fact very corrupt, and should never have been held in any esteem. But as far as any lists go, I really only had Scrivener and Waite to use.

Then Norton came along, and I bought his book, and I added more to my list, and found out more things to do with the textual history of the KJB. Then, at the start of 2007 I launched my website.

In 2007 I found that Norris had also made a list like Waite had, but a little different, and with the purpose of putting down Waite, which has not, to my knowledge been fully publicly released, though I have asked for the full list several times from the exacting collator.

As far as identifying the Pure Cambridge Edition, the textual comparisons of it with 1611, study of the words of it, the identification of its editor, the times it was printed, its numbers of impressions, comparisons between it and 1769 and other present editions, the seven purifications of the KJB, details of specific variations, and so forth, such labours to discover have been undertaken by myself, and in unity with the leaders of my Church. Most especially we should thank God that not only do we have the knowledge of the pure Word, but that it is present.

Thus, for word lists and comparisons, we have:
Scrivener
Waite
Norton
Verschuur (bibleprotector, the present author)
and, Norris (in part)

Thus, for identifying the Cambridge Edition we have:
Scholars:
Scrivener (generally)
Norton (generally)

Modernists:
White (at least certain readings)
Norris (at least certain readings)

KJBO:
Waite, though Concord (and others, such as Holland, Cloud, etc.)
Kizziah, though Concord
Verschuur (bibleprotector, the present author), specifically in the PCE.

While KJBO defence of the Cambridge Edition has often been of the correct readings, since various such readings agree between the Pure Cambridge Edition and the Concord Edition, the problem is that while the Concord Edition is being used by some, eventually their position, while good and correct concerning many places, e.g. Joshua 19:2, Jeremiah 34:16, Nahum 3:16, etc., it would no longer be good enough to use the Concord as further research and detailed knowledge (which Norton himself does not seem to give any distinctions between the PCE and the Concord, though he acknowledges that there was a collaboration with Oxford to make the Concord), since other variations and particular things came to light, which do indeed show that the PCE is in fact correct rather than the Concord — which Concord was adequate to show major errors of the Oxfords!

Providentially, even though the exact textual knowledge was not known, it took the combination of the scientific textual study in the 20th Century Cambridge Editions directly linked with the spiritual belief that there should be a perfect presentation of the pure Word (KJB), God allowed the KJBO people to use the Concord, which was in many places right, and created a pro-Cambridge atmosphere, and certainly an anti-modern corruption of the KJB atmosphere, but as long as there was either a lingering feeling that any edition was alright, maybe the 1850s American Revision, or that Scrivener’s was respectable, or that we were just using the 1769 Edition, or just the Cambridge Edition without knowing anything about the Concord, where there was a true heart inclined toward purity, then God covered for such “ignorance” because the right spirit was found in those who were indeed truly standing for the pure Word.

"Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go." (Isaiah 48:17).