***************
Please allow me to show you that the Pure Cambridge Edition (the right Cambridge) is better than your Oxford Edition (any Oxford). By "better" or "superior" I mean clear of all perpetuated typographical errors, language impurities and lack of regularisation.
For example, this is 1 Corinthians 1:2, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours". In the Oxford it has "both their's and our's". This use of the apostrophe goes against standard English, and is not the traditional form of the King James Bible. This is an example of impurity in the Oxford, which things get in the way of the proper presentation. That is only a small difference.
The word “ye” rather than “you”. Over the years there has been some revision of the use of “ye” and “you”, mainly in the 1769 edition. “Ye” is used as the subject, while “you” is the object, in this verse, Joshua 4:5, “take ye up of you”, where the subject, “ye”, appearing in the middle of the sentence, may have been confusing to an editor. For the sake of explanation, a paraphrase will be show that “ye” is correct, “Ye take of you”. The Cambridge uses proper English, and follows the 1611, the Oxford is in error.
The apostrophe after a plural in “wits’”. Since the apostrophe was not used in the 1611 Edition, the judgment on this verse must be made based on its context. To say “wit’s” means belonging to one wit, to say “wits’” means belonging to more than one wit. Since the word before is “their”, and the verse is speaking of “men”, each of which have wits, then the use of the apostrophe must reflect that it is more than one wit, namely, the Cambridge spelling of “wits’”, thus the Oxford here contains a grammatical error here.
The meaning of “instructors”. The Oxford is incorrect here, as there are two different words employed in the Bible here with similar spelling. The word “instructer” is found in the Old Testament, and means “one who instructs”, the word “instructor” and “instructors” appear in the New Testament (in the Pure Cambridge Edition). An “instructor” is “one who instructs” and “a teacher” which is a wider ranging meaning than “instructer”. Also the New Testament uses the word to refer to people instructing in doctrine, while the Old Testament uses the word to refer to instructing in metal work. While the Oxford attempts to make the spelling of the word consistent between the Genesis 4:22 and 1 Corinthians 4:15, this “consistency” is in fact error.
Here's the problem: I have counted 272 differences between the Oxford and the Cambridge, and most of them have a bigger impact on either grammar or meaning than the ones I have mentioned above. I invite any KJB believer to read this short article on the subject: www.bibleprotector.com/THERE_IS_ONLY_ON ... _BIBLE.pdf
Support for the Cambridge Edition comes forth very clearly from all positions on the King James Bible issue, so it is unique for me to hear of someone who apparently supports the Oxford. I know some people who are content to use the Oxford, but they have not committed themselves to an Oxford-is-superior position.
***************
He rejected that, so I said:
***************
Once again, let us establish that there is no VERSION change or TRANSLATION change from the 1611 Edition to the 1769 Edition, and likewise no change to the Pure Cambridge Edition which is from the 1769 Edition. The issue is merely to do with accuracy, goodness and purity in presentation in regards to the Cambridge v. Oxford differences. Also, the differences between them are so minor as compared to massive differences and errors and heresies which are found in the modern versions.
I do not believe that it would be wise, commendable or edifying to go into anything more than a basic assessment some of the broad ideas presented.
I said that the Cambridge "Spirit" of God in Matthew 4:1 is correct, because it is speaking about the Holy Ghost. I have elsewhere given long explanations as to why the word "spirit" should in various places be lower case, where it indicates the operations of the spirit of God in the heart of man, etc., but Matthew 4:1 is not one of them. Furthermore, compare Luke 4:1, "And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness". Holy Ghost = Spirit = Holy Ghost. And it was the "Spirit" who was doing the leading, see also Rom. 8:14, Gal. 5:18.
I said that the Cambridge “Son of God” is correct, since Jesus was physically the Son of David, as Matt. 1:6 (some say Luke 3:31) indicates, through Mary, then Jesus was not only a son of David, but being the Son of God, is also the "Son of David" both as God's names are capitalised, and as certain titles are capitalised, "Son". Note the following:
Matthew 22:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Now to “further” and “farther”. Webster's dictionary is merely a secondary source (and Noah Webster was a Bible "corrector"!). The Oxford English Dictionary, as well as Cambridge Bible use, clearly show that farther is where the choice is between two absolute states, near or far. Whereas further can be anywhere on a long line from here to wherever.
While there can be some acceptability to the Oxford wordings in places, when compared to the Cambridge rendering, it is the Cambridge which, upon both spiritual and natural study that has the weight behind it. Moreover, since an overwhelming proportion of the differences are overwhelmingly correct in the Cambridge, it follows that if there were any more difficult places to resolve whether one or other Edition were correct at that place, that since the Cambridge is certainly right the majority of times, it must be right in the other times also. (Not one Cambridge Edition rendering can be proved wrong, and things come to light by study and this believing approach, which shows that every last place in the Cambridge is pure.)
It seems that the counter explanations to justify Oxford renderings are quite a leap. Even more because the Cambridge has been traditionally held to be the standard, and that the consensus is behind the Cambridge, and in accordance with the explanations that are both Biblically consistent and, upon examination, truthful and exact.
Since there are differences between the Oxford and Cambridge Edition, it cannot be said that both are correct in regards to the making of it plain and rightly ordered (see Hab. 2:2). One is better. Only one is the pure presentation.
The important Scriptural basis for this is that Isaiah 34:16 demands for every last word to be correct in the presentation: “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” Again, that God’s Word should actually fully exist in published (perpetuated) form, “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” (Psalm 68:11). Since the Oxford Edition is not getting it right in the jots and tittles, it cannot be God’s best, or the ultimate fulfilment of various prophecies as concerning the exact publishing of His pure words.
***************
He rejected that, so I said,
***************
Rick Norris said,
The facts from these Oxford editions shows that all the updating was not finished by 1769. This evidence clearly shows that editors or printers after 1769 introduced some changes into the text of present Oxford KJV editions. This evidence affirms that the 1769 Oxford KJV edition was not "free from man-made error." Furthermore, this evidence indicates that the text of the present Oxford KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible is a post-1840 edition or likely even a post-1880 edition. Is the present Oxford standard edition no longer a "true edition" according to some KJV-only reasoning since it has alterations made after 1769, 1840, and even 1880?
It is true that purification of the King James Bible was not complete by 1769, and that both Oxford and Cambridge have made changes since that time. The Oxford underwent changes in 1817 and some time in the late 1800s. There are a few minor differences between the Scofield and the normal Oxford of more recent years. So, we could ask, "Which Oxford is the right one?"
Of course, none of them are the pure edition, because that has been printed by Cambridge.
It is evident that many corrupted editions of the King James Bible are now appearing, but there is the issue: to what measure do we measure "corruption"? The only logical way to do so is to have one presentation which is incorrupt, and use it as the standard. It is clear that in all kinds of things the Oxford is not the purest edition.
The historical purification led to a finite point, whereafter any deviation was impure and erroneous. It is clear that:
1. The Cambridge Edition cannot be shown to be wrong or worse than the Oxford Edition at any place.
2. The Oxford Edition cannot be proved better or more authoritative than the Cambridge Edition.
There are various conceptual errors, and diverse examples of grammatical inconsistencies and other types of problems that would exist if the Oxford renderings were true/pure/right. The most famous example is Joshua 19:2, which shows that Beer-sheba is also called Sheba. This makes sense in verse 6, where thirteen towns are said to have been listed. If the Oxford rendering of "and Sheba" is correct, verse 6 would be a lie. That is why the Cambridge "or Sheba" is recognised to be right by probably every expert who looks at this issue.
Any new King James Bible edition which is differing in any place to the Pure Cambridge Edition is getting it wrong. It is evident that many of the American publishers are getting it really wrong now, because there is a pure standard by which they are judged.
***************
He also rejected my points, which I answered:
***************
Please note how open I have been with all the facts, and how generally people at least prefer the Cambridge; how can this translate to my being "deceptive"?
Anyone who believes in the virgin birth would believe that Jesus was physically the Son of David. Otherwise Jesus was not "come in the flesh".
This is doublemindedness. I know some people say that both Cambridge and Oxford are concurrently correct, but that is an impossible position. First, because one word is missing in the Oxford in Exodus 23:23, so both cannot be concurrently correct. Second, because some concepts are opposite, just as "and Sheba" versus "or Sheba" in Joshua 19:2. Third, because some Oxford renderings are clearly typographical errors which came in after 1611, but are correct in the Cambridge because it is matching the 1611 at that place, such as "whom ye" (Cambridge) for "whom he" (Oxford) at Jeremiah 34:16.
The OED has been recognised by the world is superior to Websters for various reasons, and the meaning of "further" and "farther" is authoritatively recorded in the OED, which is the proper description of the English language, and the secular standard. (The Pure Cambridge KJB is the standard of the pure language, which is Biblical English.) There are various sources which shows the difference between "further" and "farther", an issue made somewhat more famous to younger people in the movie, "Finding Forester".
I can see a "Pure" Cambridge text, as opposed to other presentations. It is plain from Biblical explanations, internal considerations, and external phenomena. I can see a whole chain of divine providence in favour of going the way of Cambridge. Whoever is resisting seems to be doing so from a reactionary approach. Those who garrison themselves at Oxford are bound to fall in due season. This is because only one can stand, not both.
Where is the exact pure presentation of the Word of God in English, including exact word order, spelling and punctuation? There is one edition which has the great attestation of numerous representatives of this purity.
***************
After these words I was muted from the forum without explanation, and various accusations were levelled, not against the Cambridge Edition, but against our non-Baptist doctrines. Like Oliver Cromwell said as concerning the contentions with the Oxford men, "Religion was not the thing at first contested for, but God brought it to that issue at last, and gave it unto us by way of redundancy, and at last it proved to be that which was most dear to us." It was not really about Oxford being better at all, but about our stand for truth and the linking to providences on our behalf.
Thus, it came to a major dispute that I actually believe that Jesus is physically the Son of David through the virgin birth (i.e. Mary's genealogy); yet for one to object against my point that God took on the seed David is quite astounding: “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John verse 7). Why, this was the very thing the antichrist spirit would not have us touch, namely, "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15:16-18).
I do not shirk from my declaration concerning the Pure Cambridge Edition, "The words outlining this doctrine should, by God’s grace, form an expeditionary army of a new model, which would either persuade or repel present King James Bible proponents." Our war is not aimed at the Oxford men, but to reduce them to obedience and the right order; rather, our eyes look toward the bodies of people who are presently in the darkness, who require the light, and that light should be the Word of God coming to them in the form of preaching from the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.
