cambridge vs. oxford printing of the kjv.
 

ok, i know the cambridge is the propper kjv text, but the three so called errors in the oxford change nothin in my sight.

here is the three changes between the oxford vs. cambridge

oxford: 2 chronicles 33:19 says "sin"
cambridge: same text as above- "sins"

oxford: nahum 3:16- "fleeth"
cambridge: "flieth"

oxford: Jeremiah 34:16 "whom he"
cambridge: whom ye


oxford: matthew 23:24 at a gnat
cambridge: out a gnat


now in the first case i listed i can see where sin can be a plural as indicated by the cambridge

in the second: they both mean to escape, go away

in the third: this is the one where i can see it needs rectifying, he is a singular no matter which way you cut it, and ye is a plural no matter which way you cut it..

and in the fourth: once again i don't see a big deal because both indicate the exact same thing..

i'd like to here your thoughts about this, and if you have any more varients of cambridge vs. oxford, please post them.

in the beginning i meant four, but i said 3 errors in the oxford kjv.. all my bibles are oxford, except one which is a hybrid of the cambridge, used by zondervan

I answered one of these in the "Why reject the NKJV"
my reposting:To answer your questions specifically, both word in each example. In Jeremiah 34;16, the context lets you know that the King of Judah, Zedekiah, had made a covenant with the people of Judah. This covenant said that the people would release their man and maidservants, or slaves, contrary to the covenant God had made witht the Israelites in Exodus. Suddenly, the people recalled their bondservants and made them work again.

So, the King told the people to release the bondservants, meaning that he released the bondservants with the authority of his royalty. "whom he released"

The people released the bondservants with the authority as their masters. "whom ye released"

Both parties, King Zedekiah and the Israelites released their bondservants.

"Ye" (the Israelites) and "he" (the King Zedekiah) both released the bondservants.

There are heaps more differences between Cambridge and Oxford, and you can find all the information on my website, www.bibleprotector.com

Clearly, the Cambridge is proper, standard and right.

Here is a short article:

www.bibleprotector.com/THERE_IS_ONLY_ONE_PURE_KING_JAMES_BIBLE.pdf

If you want all the indepth technical information, like all the differences between Oxford and Cambridge, besides being on my website, you can also find that here:

http://bibleprotector.99k.org/Appendices.zip

I know some people claim that it doesn't matter which edition, or some even claim that all editions are correct. But this latter idea is illogical, because some of the differences are directly contradictory. Some are just bad grammar in the Oxford. Some are just typographical errors that have been perpetuated in the Oxford. The Cambridge is exactly right every time, and most of the time matches with the 1611 Edition as well.

That's wrong. Every proper KJB (i.e. every edition from 1611 to 1769, the Oxfords and the Cambridges) has "at a gnat", that "out" rendering is the invention of certain American Revisers and is also present in Scrivener's misguided edited revisionary corruption. (Scrivener's edition or Zondervan's reprint of it are not real Cambridge editions.)

You might want to read:

www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

bibleprotector, i went to that appendices, and there is too much gobledy gook, can you just post the proper cambridge vs. oxford printings, like i did in my initial post when i started this thread.

i also found a spot where i will agree with the improper over the cambridge

9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73

i agree with betrayeth over bewrayeth because of what i read in my dictionary

Bewray
BEWRA'Y, v.t. beray. To disclose perfidiously; to betray; to show or make visible.

Thy speech bewrayeth thee. Mat 23.

[This word is nearly antiquated.]

Then you know why I am not posting a full list, because it is massively long (for a post on a forum I mean).

The dictionary is only a tool. If you are going to say that the KJB is wrong (and all proper editions have "bewrayeth", therefore you are indeed saying that the KJB is wrong), then I will at least point out that "bewrayeth" is right.

Bewray means to reveal by speech, perhaps inadvertently.

Betray means to sell out.

Judas betrayed Christ. Peter's speech bewrayed him. It is easy to see that these are two different words with two different meanings.

I suggest starting from the view that the KJB is right. Then get a proper dictionary (the full Oxford English Dictionary). After that, you can look up in the dictionary, or even in Strong's Concordance, or other good versions of the Bible from old, and see that "bewray" is the proper word with the proper meaning. But until and unless you start out with the KJB being right, you will get your definitions and your "which edition of the KJB" wrong.

Let your own words judge you: you claim to willingly agree with the improper!

here is the folly in your conclusion.. number one i started out believing the kjb is the word of God, but not knowing which edition is the correct one.
number two. you're still wrong about bewray because if you look at the text in question in it's entirety you'll see that it must be betray because speech is previously identified as the betrayer, so while bewray does mean what you say it means (to betray with speach either purposely or inadvertantly) it is still wrong. if you had looked at the verse in full glory

Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for .


if bewray is the intended word then there would be a need to remove -thy speech betrayeth thee- and replace it with -thou art bewrayed- all my bibles say bewrayeth but betrayeth is a fuller reading because speech is identified as the betrayer.. and as a king james bible believer i'm used to going against the grain and believing what normal people call the improper. i'm also used to people checking it out for themselves and sometimes, just sometimes they come back and say ohmigosh you were right.. sometimes like this time i'm going to say it comes down to personal preference because they both mean the exact same thing, and say the exact same thing.

i'm going to try something here, translating it into common language

thy speech betrayeth thee. - your speech betrays you
thy speech bewrayeth thee- your speech betrays you by speech

so now without going back, and after examing these in full light of modern english, i must admit i can see where you are right.. saying it betrays is one thing, but bewrayeth is not only saying that it's the speech doing the betraying, but it is confliction of speech. you're right if i am figuring this right..

bewrayeth is not only giving the action "betrayal" it is also giving the vehicle for that betrayal ( his words conflicting with each other) hey thanks for helping me out in this..

but now it just comes down to getting a list of the propper readings so i can go through my bibles and make the appropriate changes so they match the proper king james text. but since you don't have a list that just go's through and gives the proper wording i guess i have to go get one of those extremely overpriced cambridge pitt minion or concord bibles.. can't even buy american anymore, son of a gun.. ok bible protector, now i'm gonna ask you another favor,

if there is any cambridge bibles that are not the pure, which ones are they?


or rather which cambridge bibles are the correct ones??

by the way, i like having the center column references, so i'll prolly get a pitt minion, or concord.. french moroccan leather. i don't get into bonded leather or hardcover or paperbacks, i'd prefer the morocco leather [goatskin] but those are wayyy to expensive for my blood

Yes, there are plenty of impure Cambridge printed KJBs around now, but the pure one will match to the following:

HOW TO KNOW THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

It is important to have the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible, since there are correctors (e.g. publishers) who have changed some aspects of King James Bible texts. The final form of the King James Bible is the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), which conforms to the following:

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

The word "bewrayeth" is the proper reading, and any contrary thoughts are showing rejection of God's provision of the King James Bible (especially because "bewrayeth" is also there from 1611 to 1769). Rejecting this is rejecting the Scripture, "Every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5a).

bibleprotector, the thing is i won't be able to examine the texts because i'll be ordering over the internet. all i'll know is that i am ordering a cambridge bran kjv. i just don't know which one is the best

forgot to sk you if you could reccomend a few different types of kjv's published by cambridge.. if you could just provide the isbn numbers i'd be greatful

As far as I can tell, Cambridge are not publishing the pure text any more.

The Cambridge Standard Text Edition has problems like lower case "spirit of God" in Genesis 1:2.

Here are some of the impure renderings of the Concord Cambridge: impure first, Pure Cambridge Edition second.

I have only listed one of each type of example, but there are more.

Genesis 24:57 — — enquire — — inquire (etc. etc.)
These have a possible different meaning.
Exodus 23:23 — — the Hivites — — and the Hivites
This is an English textual issue.
Numbers 6:5 — — razor — — rasor (etc. etc.)
These are spelling differences.
2 Samuel 18:29 — — Is the — — Is the (“Is” is in italics).
This is an italics difference.
Ezra 2:26 — — Gaba — — Geba
This is a spelling difference.
Ezra 6:4 — — expenses — — expences (etc.)
These are spelling differences.
Isaiah 9:6 — — Counsellor — — Counseller (etc. etc.)
These are spelling differences, but here the name of God is changed.
Jeremiah 32:5 — — prosper. — — prosper?
This is improper grammar.
Ezekiel 47:3 — — ankles — — ancles (etc.)
These are spelling differences.
Mark 2:1 — — Capernaum after — — Capernaum, after
This is a grammatical point.
Acts 11:12 — — Spirit — — spirit
This is a doctrinal issue.
Acts 11:28 — — Spirit — — spirit
This is a doctrinal issue.
Romans 4:18 — — nations, according — — nations; according
This is a grammatical point.
1 Corinthians 15:27 — — saith all — — saith, all
This is improper grammar.
1 John 5:8 — — Spirit — — spirit
This is a doctrinal issue.

The three different Cambridge Bibles I currently have listed on http://av1611.com/kjbp/books.html line up with the circa 1900 text except for 1Jo 5:7.

The interesting thing is, the hardcover large print KJ80 text used to have the circa 1900 1Jo 5:7 reading (spirit), (as does every Cambridge Bible and Collins Bible I have found printed between 1900 and 1980). But at some point in the 80s, they changed that one reading to Spirit but kept the ISBN number the same.

Meaning: 1 John 5:8

now i'm thinking about approaching a publishing company and asking them to print up some of the bibles with the text available from bible protector's website, or maybe putting it on a disk and having kinko's or someone print some up for me, maybe i can get them to do it in gen u ine leather too.. it'll be costly, but maybe, just maybe i can find a place that'll do it for me.. but i really am prolly just going to keep on with my thompson chain, i love the references in that bible, i already took a pen and put some of the corrections in the margin.. thats why i wanted a list of every variant, so i could go through and fix the whole dad gum thing..

Sadly, there is no end of variants.

But we have one true Bible, and one central presentation which we can regard as standard.

I would to God (to quote Erasmus) that we all were using the Pure Cambridge Edition, and I am glad to see that Brandon Staggs is now presenting it. The Scripture says, "The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it." (Psalm 68:11). We are in "great company", praise God.

if i ever go through with my printing endeavor i'll let you know, i'm planning on a waterproof one to take when i go in the outdoors, fishing, camping, and the sort. who knows maybe one of these days i'll start up a bible printing company of my own [one of my dreams] and get my own Christian bookstore [another dream of mine] and make it readily available to all in all kinds of bindings and with all sorts of study bibles and such

Yes, thank you.

I currently have this Bible. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521164389 hopefully this is a good one? I'm not sure how I would know? This is all quite confusing to me.

and would like to add the Interleaved Bible HAND BOUND NOTE BIBLE on the bottom of this site. http://www.pilkingtonandsons.com/interleavedbibles.htm it's out of stock right now. I would like to use this Bible for note taking, (if anyone else has any other suggestions that would be great)

Any way the Interleaved Bible Hand Bound says this: "Cambridge King James Version Text" and that's it. How do we know which Cambridge text it would be. Do you think it would be the same as the one I currently have?

The Concord is a "newer" edition that Cambridge started printing some time in the 80s I think. It is still a King James and I won't tell anyone to not use it. However, it does appear to incorporate some of the non-pristine Oxford readings. But an Oxford is a KJV too.

What is odd about the Concord is that it has selectively americanized spellings of some words (like rasor to razor) but most of them have not been americanized.

I wouldn't know about the interleaf Bible. You would have to compare it I guess.

I would not worry about your Concord. I have one that I used from around 2001 until this year when I replaced it with a Cambridge "large text edition" without references or margin notes which also lines up more closely with the "pristine" c.1900-1980 Cambridge text, though it still isn't an exact match.

It is necessary that we be intellectually honest and acknowledge that different KJV printings do have slight variations. However, none of the differences that I have seen actually cast doubt on what God actually said. While I agree that the c.1900-1980 text is the most pristine edition, I can't find cause to tell people not to buy new Bibles just because they don't match exactly.

I would really like to see the c.1900 text used as the standard for new printings of the KJV, and I am going to use it as the standard for my Bible software in future updates.

Yes, we know that many good Christians have used KJBs with these very slight variations between them since 1611. Obviously, the best thing to do is to receive God's providentially supplied proper presentation of the KJB, and allow that through the process of time it to be the common standard.

Thanks, I feel a better about this now. You think you are safe in getting a KJV?? I certainly thought I was safe in purchasing a Cambridge edition?

I'm already called a KJVO nut, and wasn't looking forward to being called a KJV "pristine" c.1900-1980 Cambridge text only nut.....or...... KJVPc.1900-1980CTO nut.

I have many KJB's that I have received from grandparents, etc, I'll have to look around and see if I have the "pristine" text.

Does anyone know if the Defined King James Bible from The Bible for Today is the "pristine" text? Just curious, I also have that Bible.

I have a beautiful Moroccan leather wide-margin Bible from Bearing Precious Seed http://www.bpsmilford.org/. There are no study helps at all, but it's still the best Bible I have. The only thing is that from what I checked it seems to be half-Oxford/half-Cambridge.

I was wondering that given their philosophy (as I remember reading it in their newsletter or somewhere) that scripture publishing should be entrusted to the church and not commercial interests, and commercial interests may be a reason for the proliferation of different versions, if they might be one to approach about this?

This is from their Statement of Faith:

Those Church or ministry organisations printing King James Bibles in recent years have been printing the Concord Cambridge Edition, which is a hybrid with the Oxford, and therefore has some issues.

While King James Bible printing has been in the hands of the Anglican-National Universities, that is, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as under the Anglican-Royal power, the King James Bible was largely maintained while these bodies (and England herself) were Christian. Also, the common faith of the priesthood of believers was consenting to this. But there has been a complete reversal in national and religious culture in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Therefore, it is now up to Christians to "gather" and "maintain" and "preserve" and "protect" the Word of God.

Clearly, God would not allow his national vessel of Britain to go toward the beast-system and yet not care for His Word that was being kept by His providential use of the British Crown and the two learned institutions. Therefore, we must see that God has transferred the guardianship into the hands of others now, who are going to stand for the truth. This is of central importance at my Church. And there are others around the world who are also called to this type of ministry, as they see the witness through the Bible Protector website.

If the King James Bible had the backing of the greatest monarchy in recent centuries, then the continued backing of the King James Bible has to be greater. If the King James Bible was at the foundation of the Christian nations as they were, we must yet see a restoration somewhere, so that the pure and true King James Bible be upheld as an ensign, and be the basis of a godly culture somewhere in the world. See Psalm 110:3.

I just looked in my Defined King James Bible and it's Cambridge 1769 text.

hey jeff, do you know which of their bibles are red letter text? is the hand size, and wide margin red letter? and finally, do they have any others in genuine leather other than the hand size and wide margin?

The wide margin is not red letter, so I suspect that none of them are. I think what you're seeing on their website are all they have (http://www.bpsmilford.org/store.html).

You might try searching for Bearing Precious Seed of Lansing, MI (I'm not sure of their relation to BPS of Milford and El Paso). I know when I checked they had some Old Scofield study Bibles with (I think) a concordance and maps. But I don't know about red letter, as I remember they also didn't have very good descriptions of the Bibles, so you might have to call or write to find out. I remember I thought their wide margin Bibles looked funny with the margins all around the perimeter but no center margin, so I didn't know how I'd write notes on the center verses.

That doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Firstly, because probably no one is using a Cambridge Bible literally printed in 1769, and secondly, because while all normal KJBs are based on the 1769 Edition, there are differences.

The "Cambridge Editions" as printed by Bearing Precious Seed or the one printed by Bible For Today called "The Defined King James Bible" are using the Concord Cambridge Edition as their text.

It wasn't until 1835 that Cambridge changed from following the 1762 Edition to following the Oxford Edition that was directly based upon the 1769 Edition (with corrections), but Cambridge did not follow it exactly, because Oxford always has had some peculiar spellings. The Cambridge was then edited noticeably around 1900, making the Pure Cambridge Edition. And then somewhere around the 1980 Cambridge changed the pure edition slightly back to the Oxford, so creating the Concord Cambridge Edition.

Bearing Precious Seeds is an umbrella name that many independant printing companies take. And there are differences between the texts that they use (referring to capitalization or spelling of certain words).

I was referring to the Bearing Precious Seed at Lansing, in regard to their "Cambridge" editions. They must be printing Oxfords as well if they are printing Scofields.

I'm only familiar with Milford and I know they work to some extent with El Paso. I believe they are a worthy mission as I know of a missionary they have provided scriptures to at no cost (except I think shipping). I also know of others who have went on mission trips with them.

I just think that if there is a "pristine" Word of God I should be able to get it in a high quality Moroccan leather Bible. (Some people can't even obtain the scripture but I want mine gold-plated. I guess I am spoiled or coveteous or something.)

I believe BPS does have a concern for the preservation of scripture. That's why I was wondering if they might be the ones to print a Pure Cambridge Bible if they could be made aware and convinced that it exsists? (I'm not volunteering to convince them, my own knowlege of the facts behind the Pure version and my skills of persuasion are very shaky).