Riplinger favourable to Cambridge Edition position
Posted: 27 May 2014, 18:03Gail Riplinger has come out in favour of a position that is very, very close to the Pure Cambridge Edition. This is good news, in that she recognises the need for correctness and making a stand against modern changes to King James Bibles.
I am very thankful for this, and appreciate her positive approach on the issue. While I want to see more people using the King James Bible, my hope is that King James Bible believers will agree that the Cambridge tradition is correct.
http://www.ourkjv.com/KJB.pdf
There is a lot of good stuff there, and plenty of good things to discuss, and only a few areas that I would address. These points are not in depth, and they are just my quick laying out of ideas in response to some areas.
1. She says that the edition we stand for "has been presumptuously named the ‘Pure Cambridge Edition’ (PCE)." It may seem presumptuous to some, but the name was sincerely given, and has stuck.
2. She writes, "It is an generally out-of-print Cambridge setting, determined to be ‘pure’ by Mr. Verschuur, a young Pentecostal man from Australia." It was recognised as "pure" by the three Elders of our traditional Pentecostal Church, not me alone.
3. She says, "But his final conclusions, that the Cambridge setting he uses is in all points superior to other Cambridge settings, cannot be defended, at every point." Of course, all of us can agree on almost every point, so the few places where it may be more difficult, I think that PCE is correct, and that there are things which show in favour of it in those few places. Mrs Riplinger is not yet convinced, but at least her present opinion on the issue is far better than those who support modernised so-called "KJV Bibles".
4. She says, "On these points he relies on his ‘Pentecostal’ experiences to defend them, as described in his book." Remember, there is no specific Pentecostal doctrine that is at stake on the few areas where there may be an orthographic issue. Of course, the view at my Church is that a Spirit-filled Christian is in the best position to find out about these areas.
5. She also writes, "The righteous rigor with which King James Bible users have defended the KJB cannot be carried forward onto a debate between the orthography of one or two words (i.e. Spirit and Geba), which have seemed to defy historical and theological resolution for centuries." It is correct that the nature of the discussion concerning these few words among King James Bible believers should be much better than against enemies of the King James Bible.
6. Concerning 1 John 5:8, she writes, "Sundry other printers, including Verschuur’s PCE: 'spirit'”. Well, it is not just "my" PCE. In this issue the PCE does match the 1769 Edition.
7. She writes, "Unfortunately, Mr. Verschuur (PCE) insists that lower case ‘s’ is correct in 1 John 5:8. In his discussion of 1 John 5:8, he states that his choice is based upon what he calls ‘Pentecostal doctrine,’ which doctrine, he says, is contained in his ‘Pure’ Cambridge Edition.” His misunderstanding of the usage of the word ‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’, based upon his Pentecostal theology, causes him to be adamant about his decision here." It is not specifically a Pentecostal argument, but yes, there are theological reasons why I think it should be lower case. After all, since many Cambridge Editions agreed together with these particulars, and they are right elsewhere, I think they are right in these few places also. (Having said that, I recognise that plenty of people have the King James Bible with a capital "S" there, and it has not historically been a specific theological issue.)
8. She continues, "Having looked at Bibles worldwide and back through time, I can confirm that both lower case and capital ‘S’ can be correct. Neither is an error." I would agree that the word "error" should not be improperly used, and that we must be aware not to cause a stumblingblock. However, I do support having a correct presentation, and that it should be resolved as one rather than the other. Let me also add that many fine Christians and well-used Bibles have had "Spirit" rather than "spirit" at that verse, and I think that God in His sufficiency and grace has blessed Bible believers despite such issues.
9. Mrs Riplinger lists the 1638 Edition as an important historical milestone, but does not give as much credit to the 1769 Oxford Edition as others would.
10. I don’t know how much good it will do petitioning Cambridge (except for our pro-KJB PR of course!). I think the issue is in believers’ hands, rather than CUP’s.
I am very thankful for this, and appreciate her positive approach on the issue. While I want to see more people using the King James Bible, my hope is that King James Bible believers will agree that the Cambridge tradition is correct.
http://www.ourkjv.com/KJB.pdf
There is a lot of good stuff there, and plenty of good things to discuss, and only a few areas that I would address. These points are not in depth, and they are just my quick laying out of ideas in response to some areas.
1. She says that the edition we stand for "has been presumptuously named the ‘Pure Cambridge Edition’ (PCE)." It may seem presumptuous to some, but the name was sincerely given, and has stuck.
2. She writes, "It is an generally out-of-print Cambridge setting, determined to be ‘pure’ by Mr. Verschuur, a young Pentecostal man from Australia." It was recognised as "pure" by the three Elders of our traditional Pentecostal Church, not me alone.
3. She says, "But his final conclusions, that the Cambridge setting he uses is in all points superior to other Cambridge settings, cannot be defended, at every point." Of course, all of us can agree on almost every point, so the few places where it may be more difficult, I think that PCE is correct, and that there are things which show in favour of it in those few places. Mrs Riplinger is not yet convinced, but at least her present opinion on the issue is far better than those who support modernised so-called "KJV Bibles".
4. She says, "On these points he relies on his ‘Pentecostal’ experiences to defend them, as described in his book." Remember, there is no specific Pentecostal doctrine that is at stake on the few areas where there may be an orthographic issue. Of course, the view at my Church is that a Spirit-filled Christian is in the best position to find out about these areas.
5. She also writes, "The righteous rigor with which King James Bible users have defended the KJB cannot be carried forward onto a debate between the orthography of one or two words (i.e. Spirit and Geba), which have seemed to defy historical and theological resolution for centuries." It is correct that the nature of the discussion concerning these few words among King James Bible believers should be much better than against enemies of the King James Bible.
6. Concerning 1 John 5:8, she writes, "Sundry other printers, including Verschuur’s PCE: 'spirit'”. Well, it is not just "my" PCE. In this issue the PCE does match the 1769 Edition.
7. She writes, "Unfortunately, Mr. Verschuur (PCE) insists that lower case ‘s’ is correct in 1 John 5:8. In his discussion of 1 John 5:8, he states that his choice is based upon what he calls ‘Pentecostal doctrine,’ which doctrine, he says, is contained in his ‘Pure’ Cambridge Edition.” His misunderstanding of the usage of the word ‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’, based upon his Pentecostal theology, causes him to be adamant about his decision here." It is not specifically a Pentecostal argument, but yes, there are theological reasons why I think it should be lower case. After all, since many Cambridge Editions agreed together with these particulars, and they are right elsewhere, I think they are right in these few places also. (Having said that, I recognise that plenty of people have the King James Bible with a capital "S" there, and it has not historically been a specific theological issue.)
8. She continues, "Having looked at Bibles worldwide and back through time, I can confirm that both lower case and capital ‘S’ can be correct. Neither is an error." I would agree that the word "error" should not be improperly used, and that we must be aware not to cause a stumblingblock. However, I do support having a correct presentation, and that it should be resolved as one rather than the other. Let me also add that many fine Christians and well-used Bibles have had "Spirit" rather than "spirit" at that verse, and I think that God in His sufficiency and grace has blessed Bible believers despite such issues.
9. Mrs Riplinger lists the 1638 Edition as an important historical milestone, but does not give as much credit to the 1769 Oxford Edition as others would.
10. I don’t know how much good it will do petitioning Cambridge (except for our pro-KJB PR of course!). I think the issue is in believers’ hands, rather than CUP’s.