[bibleprotector]

It is very important for us to have the exact presentation of the King James Bible, and I believe that this is the Pure Cambridge Edition. There are various King James Bible only teachers who at least prefer the Cambridge, and there are some who say that the Oxford has errors. I believe that the Oxford Edition does contain impurities, and that it is best if we all use the same thing, and that the pure and perfect presentation of the Bible in English is in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.

It is important because every word matters: “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5a).

It is important because every letter and punctuation mark matters: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

The Pure Cambridge Edition has, at Jeremiah 32:5, “And he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be until I visit him, saith the LORD: though ye fight with the Chaldeans, ye shall not prosper?” But the Oxford Edition has “prosper.” This seems like a minor difference. But it is major. It is major because the very correctness of the Word of God is at stake.

Now, the reason why the verse should end with a question mark is because in verse three we read that Zedekiah said, “Wherefore dost thou prophesy, and say ...” and then the reset of verse three to the end of verse five is his quote of the prophecy, but he is asking “Wherefore”, that is, Why do you say this?

Since “Wherefore” is the beginning of the question, the end of the question should have a question mark, as is given at the end of verse five.

All the editions which do not have a question mark at the end of verse five are impure presentations. That includes the 1611 Edition. The Word of God is pure, but obviously it took some time before the King James Bible was being printed exactly correct in regards to all the spelling and little printer's mistakes.

[bibleprotector]

If you look at Luke 6:3, 4, you will see that Jesus asked a question, and that He quoted the Old Testament in His question, so at the end of the quotation, which is the end of the question, there is a question mark "?".

See also Matthew 19:4, 5.

According to Jeremiah 32 the king is asking him why he made that prophecy, and then states the prophecy.

"For Zedekiah king of Judah had shut him up, saying, Wherefore dost thou prophesy (in other words why are you saying this), and say, ......

So I don't think it needs to end with a question mark and I also don't believe that if the other editions disagree with that, that they are wrong.

Another thing Bibleprotector I'm not for sure if God is into the preservation of punctuation, since He said "the WORDS of the Lord are pure words..... Thou shalt keep THEM (speaking of the words) from this generation for ever. the verse you used which spoke of the "jot or tittle" I don't believe it is speaking of punctuation, I believe it is speaking of the entire prophecy and that every part of it shall be fulfilled. God only inspired the originals (which we don't have) and according to ancient findings they did not have punctuation. So was God all that concerned about it? Don't get me wrong it needs to be there but I would not say that all the punctuation is perfect because that would change with the translation as words were added to make it flow from Greek or Hebrew to English.

[bibleprotector]

Jots and tittles implies every last detail, and this includes the punctuation. This is because the punctuation is a part of the language, and changing punctuation at any place alters something, and can change ideas quite drastically. For example, Luke 23:32.

I would not say that all the punctuation is perfect because that would change with the translation as words were added to make it flow from Greek or Hebrew to English.

I assume this is referring to the words in italic typeface. Actually, people misunderstand this area completely. Italics have two uses: they are used to indicate where only a small amount of textual evidence for those wordings is found, and they are used to indicate where the same concepts or implied sense of the originals not expressed by actual words needs to be actually expressed with English words. This is because it may take more English words to say the same thing than the original languages. In no way are the translators actually adding to the inspiration. Let me explain:

We know that ideas are expressed by words, and that there is a group of words which, in the Autographs, were exactly expressing God's message. We know that these words were preserved in the collective of many copies, and that if the same message is to be given in English, it may well take a few extra English words to convey the exact same message. Therefore, we cannot say that the translators were just adding English words to the Scripture, just to make it make sense as it came from a different language. In fact, they were giving the actual translation, even with the italic words.

In English, we can say, "I am typing posts for this forum on my computer, and you are also typing posts." Yet, the last part of the message is implied, which I could add in "italics", "you are also typing posts on a computer." But I didn't say "on a computer", but that is what I meant. That in some way explains how the Hebrew or Greek may mean something, and yet because of the Biblical English, there is a requirement to use more English words to convey the same sense.

John Burgon wrote, "the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English" (Revision Revised, page 167).

And, "we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English." (page 190).

It is obvious that the italic words are just as much the Word of God as those set in roman type. We then do not have "additional" words with the italics, but "every word of God".

Since the words of the Lord are pure words, we should expect that the letters are pure too. Why would the words be pure and not the punctuation? Surely the God who has with his power preserved and provided for us a word perfect Bible is also going to make sure that the punctuation is right as well!

It is really irrelevant whether or not there was or was not punctuation in the original languages. The fact that the Scripture promises to come to the Gentiles, and that it comes to them in English, and that English has commas and full stops requires that God's Word in English would include commas and full stops.

It is not beneath God to be concerned about the punctuation: since He is perfect, he would want the Bible to be punctuation perfect as well.

Originally Posted by lei-kjvonly

God only inspired the originals (which we don't have).

Actually, this passage states that all Scripture IS inspired - that includes translations and copies, which Timothy had - he was not reading the originals:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Jots and tittles implies every last detail, and this includes the punctuation.

No, jots and tittles does not refer to punctuation. Study out what those two words mean: jots is basically referring to things like the dotting of i's, and tittles are accent marks that affect the meaning of a word. I do believe that if someone plays around with punctuation it will change the meaning of the passage - but the original Hebrew and Greek do not have punctuation. It is the translators' wisdom (hopefully directed by God) that determines how a passage is punctuated.

[bibleprotector]

No, jots and tittles does not refer to punctuation. Study out what those two words mean: jots is basically referring to things like the dotting of i's, and tittles are accent marks that affect the meaning of a word. ... the original Hebrew and Greek do not have punctuation. It is the translators' wisdom (hopefully directed by God) that determines how a passage is punctuated.

Wait a moment! There are no "accents" in the English. How can "tittle" mean an accent mark, when the King James Bible has no accent marks? Surely, the real meaning of the word tittle is obvious from Scripture itself, as is also attested to in the Oxford English Dictionary, that the word means small strokes, including the punctuation.

If we are just relying on man's wisdom on how the Scripture is punctuated, then by chance it may be right or wrong. But if we rely on the truth that God is caring for His Word to the very details, including its presentation (see Habakkuk 2:2), then we know that it is the Spirit who in His superintendence over history has ensured that things have worked out in such a way so that the translators and subsequent editors were able to get the punctuation in the King James Bible perfectly right and proper. There are no "multiple valid ways" for presenting the punctuation of any passage. (There is no wrong punctuation use in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.)

Jots and tittles refer to the Hebrew Old Testament - Jesus was saying God will preserve His Word and all of it will be fulfilled. The reference is to the OT, the application is to the whole Bible - but you can't take that and change the meaning of jots and tittles to make them directly refer to the English, because they do not.

[bibleprotector]

Oh, but "jot" and "tittle" are English words in the English Bible, which is the Word of God which the promise applies to anyway. Otherwise the promise is restricted to only the Hebrew. But it isn't. But it is best and finally fulfilled with the KJB. I said that "jot" and "tittle" are English words, and you only have to check the Oxford English Dictionary to see this.

As for promises concerning the purification and truth of the Word, of course there is a direct relation between when it was said and written and that it is in the King James Bible. Not only generally, in the sense that any true Bible version is right, but also that there is a specific inference throughout Scripture as concerning the KJB. For example, when the promise was given that "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isaiah 28:11), it is prophesying of English. We know that various references in this prophecy have not yet come to pass, and since the Gospel is to come to the Jews in power in the last days, we may already see it, if we examine the providences:
1. We have the Gospel and a perfect Bible and speak English.
2. The Jews are becoming ripe for conversion, and can speak English.
Therefore, not using their language (Hebrew), but another (English), we should preach to them the Gospel using the KJB.

Let me study this out a little more guys and then I'll get back with you later. You have produced thought and I appreciate it guys! thanks again!