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

[Paladin54]

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.

[bibleprotector]

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.

[bibleprotector]

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

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.]

[bibleprotector]

too much gobledy gook

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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