Chaos in the KJV only camp: THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION 1762 vs OXFORD 1769 KJV! Which one is pure?

Posted: February 3, 2012 in King James only, KJV only defenders, Matthew Verschuur, Which KJV?
Tags: , , , , , , ,

In Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles we where warned about Satanic/evil men who tainted the KJV. The conclusion was that the 1769 KJV is 100% pure and all other KJV’s are corrupted. Now we have a rogue named Matthew Verschuur  in the KJV only movement claiming that the Cambridge Edition of the KJV is 100% perfect! How do we know which KJV is perfect? Why was the first KJV created in circa 1611 excluded from this on going debate? I would love to see these two KJVOist debate! Maybe just maybe, we will discover which KJV “god” moved over and blessed as 100% perfect.

I just wonder how (g)od goofed in 1611 and could not get it right the first time…

“The Protector” with latest news and updates are periodically post on the Bible Protector Board, click on the link:



ARE IMPURE EDITIONS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE INERRANT?A typographical error is not actually an “error” in the Bible, because it is only a presentation error. The fact is that any KJB (of the proper tradition) is still presenting the same text and translation that is correct. The issue is not about “errancy”, but about purity of presentation. (The problem is if someone is thinking that an impure rendering is the truth, if it differs to the intended and proper presentation, especially when meaning is potentially altered.)If we have an inerrant text and translation, and yet we have many differing editions of it, we would also want to have the edition which has the standard spelling and that is free from perpetuated typographical errors. As a whole, the Pure Cambridge Edition is this, and I have presented electronic copies that are free from even little accidental one-off errors of the kind that are likely to appear in almost every book on the planet.However there are some so-called KJBs which are corrupt, because the text and translation have been altered, e.g. the margin notes interpolated, or so-called “archaic” words changed.

The point is that the proper intended message and meaning of the KJB is linked with the most accurate presentation. This does not mean that present impure copies, or old copies are wrong or not “real Bibles”, but it does mean that there are places where there was potentially a question, for example, should it be “ye” or “he” in Jeremiah 34:16? Resolving this has been taking into account many factors, such as, the Hebrew, the 1611 Edition, the 1769 Edition, various opinions, and other such things. But the foundation is that God has provided out of history a completely correct edition, for which there is a witness to in a great consensus of literally millions of copies. By receiving the true edition, which is in line with God’s promise of having the seven-times purified Word, we have the responsibility to study the issue, and seeing that these things be so. (All kinds of internal and external evidences vindicate the PCE, and show it to be presentationally superior to any other edition at any place of difference.)

Also, I would point out that to have a standard copy of the King James Bible is an idea that a non-KJB person could accept, even if they do not accept that it is the pure presentation of the perfect version of God’s Word in English for the world. (After all, scholars accept the logic of having the “Cambridge standard Shakespeare” etc.)

Some presently printed Bibles are going to be closer to the “pure” edition than others, e.g. a Pitt Minion Cambridge, which was once a PCE, may now still be fairly close since Cambridge has been making changes away from the pure.

Last of all, I will mention that even if we had the final draft with handwriting in it that was delivered to the press in 1610/1611, we would find that this master copy would not be the “standard presentation”, though it would obviously have the correct text and translation just the same as any 1769-based printed copy today. We know that this is the case for a number of reasons: 1. the text and translation have not altered between the first printed copy and 1769. 2. that if there was a problem, there would have been a public comment, alteration by translators, alteration by printers and/or rejection by King James at the outset; history gives no such testimony of textual or translational defects in the King James Bible, and every change that was made, e.g. in 1638, was in line with purification, namely, of clearing out typographical errors, standardising the language and introducing other regularisation, including in the use of italics.


1. PCE Bibles are available through this website.

2. It may be possible that existing stocks of new PCE Bibles printed by HarperCollins in the Popular Size may be obtained from that publisher, Bible distributors and bookshops.

3. Second hand copies may be available in certain countries in churches, with older Christians and through second hand shops. In Australia, many Collins printed Bibles from the 1940s and 1950s conforming to the PCE may be found, as well as Cambridge printed Bibles from the same era.

For a quick check, look at whether Ezra 2:26 has the spelling “Geba”.

Use the checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Pure Cambridge Edition:

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


BACK TO THE BIBLE PROTECTOR Copyright © 2012 I am using this information as defined under the Fair Use section of US copyright law.

  1. stannj51 says:

    “Straining gnats, swallowing camels.” KJVOism is devolving into an even more divisive teaching than it was when it started.

    • PeterAV says:

      “Straining gnats, swallowing camels.” KJVOism is devolving into an even more divisive teaching than it was when it started.
      Pretty deceiving statement.
      There was division of the people because of Jesus the true Word of God as well, bud.
      It is supposed to be like that when there are so many that refuse the truth.
      But we are told to tell the stiffhearted the truth anyway.
      Seems like your retoric is calling what the Bible calls white, you call black.
      I know the Bible is better than man’s selfish oppinions.
      May the Lord Jesus Rebuke you for making fun of folk that actualy bellieve their Bible to Be the Bible.
      You have offered zip in return. It is plain that you have no pure Bible in any language.
      Thy word is very pure:
      Therefore thy servant loveth it.
      Every word of God is pure.

      Seems folk here do not believe the Bible.

  2. James King says:

    When King James Only people talk about adding to God’s word; I wonder if they ever really
    checked out their Bibles. Every King James Bible i have ever read has many added words. Are King James Only people ignoring the obvious (hidden in plain sight). Open your KJV and you will see many words in italics . These words are added by translators for clarification? This does not alter the fact that they are added words in the King James Bible. Please King James Only people be honest with yourself. Here is one very serious error in the King James Bible. Please take note……
    “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Heb 4:8 (KJV) If anyone quotes this verse verbatum (word for word) they are quoting a lie;; Jesus Christ did give us rest. Praise the Living God.

    • PeterAV says:

      When King James Only people talk about adding to God’s word; I wonder if they ever really
      checked out their Bibles. Every King James Bible i have ever read has many added words.
      What a disingenuous statement.
      You know very well that ANY translation needs to use extra words sometimes because there is not a complete word for word in every language, so some extra words need to be used.

      The King James folk were the only honest translators. Look at the modern slop today. No italics of honesty.
      This makes the dumb reader think that what the slop rag of today had in print really is in the original languages. But nothing could be further from the truth. Lots of times there is NO GREEK or HEBREW for certain words that modern perversions puke out today to the unsuspecting publick.
      Every modern slop rag has omitions of the pure word of God, changes of the pure word of God and additions to the pure word of God.
      Theses charlitains are the Real satanic culprits. of adding bud.
      The King James has added nothing and has passed the hardest scrutiny over the years.
      Many a scholar on both sides of the issue would agree.
      Your faked up straw man is nothing bud.
      You need to repent of your unbelief in the pure words of God and start to believe what the pure word of God says about the pure word of God.
      Every word of God is pure:
      Obviously, you do not even believe the Bible itself.
      Go figure.
      Every word of God is pure:

      Looks like some folk don’t believe that verse either.
      Lets all play the game of “I PREFER”

  3. Cori Venturini says:

    Did you know that any Bible which applies for a copyright must demonstrate that it is substantially–in it’s substance– different enough from all other copyrighted Bibles as to constitute being a “new work” –this is one reason why these copyrighted versions change words, delete words and delete whole verses and parts of verses. This is copyright law. Things that are different are not the same! The text of the King James Bible is and cannot be copyrighted as it is public domain. It is always wise to compare verse by verse these other versions to the King James Bible to see if any meaning, details or doctrines are changed. Doing this is a real eyeopener! So is this: these versions remove the word “Lucifer” and call this being “morning star” which is a name given to Jesus in Revelation 22:16 (KJV). So is Jesus or Lucifer the “morning star”? It’s confusing. Even if the KJB is not absolute perfection it is at least a word for word translation and not a paraphrase. When the English requires extra words to make the meaning more precise, these words are identified by being printed in italics to let the reader know about this. In addition, the Greek manuscripts used for these “new” translations are very suspect for their accuracy. The Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrian Greek texts (the basis for the Greek behind these other versions) don’t even agree with each other in thousands of places. This version issue needs to be studied thoroughly in an unbiased way. We want the Truth of God’s Word not men’s ideas. Thank you for letting me comment.

  4. Well, so much for your quoting of my website, but you get your facts totally wrong in your heading.

    The Pure Cambridge Edition is not from 1762, and the 1769 Edition is extremely rare (the only physical copy I found was preserved in a state library), so since you really have those facts wrong, then you must be wrong about the “chaos” part too.

    And you didn’t have to “cut and paste” the whole chunk of information when you could have just taken quotes and given the link … but then, your definition of “fair use” may be different to mine.

  5. Bible Protector,

    The real pressing issue is a two fold question:

    1. Why could “god” not get it right the first time when the KJV was released in 1611? If “god” could move over the men who created the KJV, then why could the same “god” who performed this miracle could not move over the printers in order to prevent error?. So then answer me this: Why are we not using the intact 1611KJV (with the Apocrypha) today as the perfect word for word translation?

    2. Where is the Scriptural support in the Bible that even remotely hints that in circa 1611 that God would move over a group of men using a new type of language not spoken in Biblical times to create a perfect English translation which would need to be revised( “purified” as some say) in order to have a complete translation by the late 1700’s?

    The real elephant in the room is that no KJVOist today uses a complete 1611KJV. The Books of the Apocrypha were deemed important enough by the translators in include and cross-reference in the 1611 KJV. Today, KJVO defenders must down play this fact and create spin in order to evade this simple fact.One would think that if “god” was behind the KJV’s creation to create a perfect Bible then “god” included the Apocrypha in order to restore it as His Word. This is the only logical reason for these books being magically included in the supernatural creation of the AV!

    I figure you will give me the typical KJVO worn out defense lines as you evade questions 1 & 2. Feel free to post but I will not allow you to clutter In the Hedge the way you clutter other sites with your idolatry of book worship.

    • PeterAV says:

      The real pressing issue is a two fold question.
      1. Why could “god” not get it right the first time when the KJV was released in 1611?
      Did you see that slop?
      he degrades God down to a god.
      God got it right bud, it is feeble man that needs the improvement.
      This takes time.
      Because God choose to USE MAN.
      So you are accusing God of being wrong for allowing Man to be the vessel.
      You need to repent of your low esteem of a great living God that loves you.
      Read the title page and you will see why we don’t use the Apocrapha in the Bible as part of the cannon. Then read the translators own words about the Apocrapha.
      It is the cultic Catholics that have the Apocrapha as part of the Cannon.
      Every word of God is pure:

      Do you have a pure Bible?

  6. Jeff says:

    Obviously men here in this forum just insist on being willingly ignorant….

    The spelling issues in these two publications are not an issue.

    God has providentially preserved his words for all men to know and communicate to others. This process is inclusive of translation and transliteration.
    God IS the Author of languages (tongues) and uses these to communicate his will, via his “words”.

    The issue isn’t if his words are preserved pure and perfect and available for all men to understand and communicate to others, the real issue is where are those words.

    The first generations of men lived up to near the time of the flood. The knowledge and “word” of God given to them and retained in minds far more capable than modern man (for the creation then being not as affected by the curse as we see and know) was spoken to their sons and daughters. Because only a few generations had passed before the flood, what was given orally retained it’s inerrancy, it wasn’t until after the flood and the rapid decrease in man’s years and the distance created in the generations that the record of his words was necessary.

    And this then is the record of the Oracles of God, given to a nation God chose to carry his words to the world that now was. God has given his words in the languages of man which he authored and continued that in the translation of the original ancient tongues,

  7. Jeff says:

    Girl K James said- ““For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Heb 4:8 (KJV) If anyone quotes this verse verbatum (word for word) they are quoting a lie;; Jesus Christ did give us rest. Praise the Living God.”

    The reading is correct…had Jesus given them rest (David and all before) then there would be no future day when Christ would (need to) come. But David did speak of another, and future day when Messiah would come.

    and yet in that day it even speaks of another and future day…and that is after all those people of God have rested from their work…and yet again after the resurrection of the last man at the end of the ages.

    9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

    And even as Jesus has sent us into the fields to labor…while it is day, he did also John 9:4 – I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

    our rest is not until we cease from our work.

  8. Jeff,

    Do you entertain yourself by spamming my blog with typical KJVO spin? All your defense(minus the long drawn out post on the Baptist Confession of Faith) are based on circular reasoning built upon a faulty foundation that only the KJV is perfect.

    Now since things that are different are not the same AND only one of these passages can be the perfect Word from the Lord, please tell me which KJV is perfect in the following example:

    “And goe, get thee to them of the captiuity, vnto thy people, and speake vnto them and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God, whether they will heare, or whether they will forbeare..” (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

    “And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *the children of thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.” (Ezek. 3:11, current KJV)

    To whom is Ezekiel to go — to his people, or to their children? This goes far beyond your claim of spelling issues.

    If you cannot answer this simple question, I will remove any further spam you post to my blog. I get tired of KJV idolaters coming here vomiting their subtle attacks on those of us who reject the false doctrine of KJV only which was started by a Seventh Day Adventist in order to defend SDA dogma.

    Consider this your last warning before I remove your ability to post here. I do not allow spam and drive by flame post.

  9. stannj51 says:

    If I may be permitted to ask a question of Jeff, Can anyone today be assured of a place with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of God who did not adhere exclusively to the KJV? IOW, is someone lost who only uses other translations?



  10. Just a note…to date Jeff has not been blocked from my blog.

    Jeff, I am curious as to how you will answer Stan’s question and my question. Both are fair questions that should be rather easy to answer in a few words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s