You had better back that up with some evidence. It's a very serious charge and you can't just blast a statement like that out there without some proof. Your claim directly contradicts what he has already said on this forum about various KJV editions, so you either need to back up your claim or retract it.

Protecting Protector
 

Luke, based on what I have read about you, you are KJBO [I am, without apology]. Is this true? If so, do you realize that it was put together by a bunch of baby-baptizers who believed that their church (Church of England) was the only true church? Not only are you WRONG about your accusations, but you don't have much to stand on yourself when the all the facts are known. Watch out when you throw mud, because a lot of it sticks to your hands and sometimes gets all over your face. Matthew (BibleProtector) is being used of God in spite of some confused doctrine ( :) to you Matthew, from your smarter Baptist brother ). His research on the history of the KJB is top-notch. Pick on the other side. In either case, know your facts before you attack.

KJB translators & baptism
 

Hi Folks,

Tim, while I agree that Luke's doctrinal warning has little to do with understanding the purity of the King James Bible and the purity of specific editions and I appreciate Matthew's efforts in the defense of the absolute purity of the King James Bible ... one small comment.

There was a large immersionist sentiment, adult baptism, at the time of the translation. One of the better articles on this is on the web.

http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/baptisminkjv.htm
BAPTISM In The King James Version By Paul Kirkpatrick
History Of Immersion For Baptism In England

I'm not saying that this is the complete picture. Such would take more study. There were a variety of views generally on the translation committee, which included Puritans. Also in some cases there is a doctrine that will baptize infants and then baptize adults (I have no idea if that applies here).

As a sidenote, there is a false accusation sometimes made against the King James Bible excellent translation of the word "baptism" (as did Tyndale, Geneva and others) however most of the readers here would be aware that the accusation is a bit on the insipid side.

Shalom,
Steven

My intent was to point out that God mightily used men to produce His Perfect Word, some whose personal beliefs and doctrines would be considered very different from most of us today. Matthew's church doctrine is in disagreement with many Baptists, but God is using him and his church in these last days to maintain and distribute the Pure Words by which we live.

Thank you Steven and Tim.

From my reading, there is evidence that adult baptism was already in place by the Brownists. By 1580, a man named Browne was a leader of a Congregationalists Church, and he promoted the idea of adult baptism. The Brownists were exiled, but appear at various times later.

So, your pure Cambridge Edition was made in 1900? So why was it OK to change sope to soap in 1900 but is wrong now to change vail to veil or divers to divers in 2008? Sounds like a bunch of silly foolish senile old men's fables and wives fables too. If some men (only God knows who) had the right to change sope to soap in 1900, then I beleive I have the right to change divers to diverse. Of course, unlike them, I wouldn't pawn off my edited up text as being the KJV 1611!!! I would give it a new name and perhaps some notes on what was changed. I bought an Americanized KJV once, and I was very dissapointed. They changed Elias to Elijah, and Sodoma to Sodom but didn't change musick to music or ancle to ankle or milch camel to milk camel. What kind of ridiculous selective update is that? Nobody ought to have a problem figuring out that Elias is Elijah and that Sodoma (which occurs only in one place) is Sodom. But milch camel might very well trip someone up! Plus they didn't provide an exhaustive list of what they changed. None of these editors ever do. And that is annoying. Even your vaunted pure Cambridge editors probably didn't. But how would I know, since the pure Cambridge doesn't really exist.

What a lot of misinformation.

The "sope"/"soap" thing is a spelling difference in Oxford editions, not anything to do with the Cambridge circa 1900.

Check the Pure Cambridge Edition and other editions for yourself to see this.

It doesn't matter what spellings the pure Cambridge updated from the previous Cambridge in 1900. The point is that they received no special dispensation orally from God to do it, nor was there a proclamation from heaven "thou canst now change sope to soap. Yea verily, thou canst. Howbeit, after thou changest this, no more changes mayest be made, nay, not so much as since for sith!" That's the point, Biblecorrector.

No answer required.