[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

The question is asked,
If by KJV1611 you mean the first printing of the book, then it is clear that changes were made. The perfection was not reached until the production of the edition now known as the PCE (Pure Cambridge Edition) about 1900. From that point forward, yes, every word, spelling, and punctuation must remain unchanged for it to be 100% perfect.

Pardon my ignorance on this but I have never heard this before. I have heard the KJVO doctrine a long time but I have always been taught the KJV1611 is the perfect, inspired Word of God. You are saying this is not the case but rather the PCE is. Where does this belief stem from and how is this. Again, pardon my ignorance on this but I don't understand how Cambridge perfected the 1611.

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought

Pardon my ignorance on this but I have never heard this before. I have heard the KJVO doctrine a long time but I have always been taught the KJV1611 is the perfect, inspired Word of God. You are saying this is not the case but rather the PCE is. Where does this belief stem from and how is this. Again, pardon my ignorance on this but I don't understand how Cambridge perfected the 1611.

I've never been comfortable with the PCE idea. I think God was smart enough to get it right the first time.

[PeterAV]

Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, et al. can be considered the pure word of God.
However, they are not pure in presentational form.
They all have certain spelling errors, omissions, even if only a few.
Only the PCE CIRCA 1900 is the pure word of God in it's presentational form.
All one needs to do is compare with honesty and one will clearly see the superiority of the PCE over the 1611 or 1769 and other later varieties.
*******
Here is one example.
Just look at Joshua 19:2 in a non-PCE.
It does not read "or Sheba", does it?
"And Sheba" is plainly wrong, to this day.
Read the context of just how many cities there are.
The PCE is presentationaly pure.

KJBers used to say, [since they knew there are differences, and the odd typo] that "Any KJB is the pure word of God."
It may have worked up until now, but now we have the final presentation of the pure Holy Bible.
*******
Also, at the time of 1611, capitalization was not finalized. Neither was spelling.
This is simple fact.
So the KJB of today is superior to the original because of this.
And the Pure Cambridge edition is superior to other KJBs in this as well.
"Spirit" versus "spirit"
As well as others.
*******
God DID get it right the first time, BUT man has presented error into the text.
See?
But quickly, errors were corrected.
The culmination is in the 1769 and completely finalized in the PCE CIRCA 1900.
We have had the Pure Holy Bible, without any admixture of error of any sort since 1900.
It simply took time for us to recognize this.
*******
In conclusion, any KJB is the pure word of God, as is the Geneva etc.
But only the PCE is the pure word of God in the final presentational form.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

Check Joshua 19:2 and see if you have a pure Bible in this place.
There are several check points other than this verse.

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by PeterAV

Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, et al. can be considered the pure word of God.
However, they are not pure in presentational form.
They all have certain spelling errors, omissions, even if only a few.
Only the PCE CIRCA 1900 is the pure word of God in it's presentational form.
All one needs to do is compare with honesty and one will clearly see the superiority of the PCE over the 1611 or 1769 and other later varieties.
*******
Here is one example.
Just look at Joshua 19:2 in a non-PCE.
It does not read "or Sheba", does it?
"And Sheba" is plainly wrong, to this day.
Read the context of just how many cities there are.
The PCE is presentationaly pure.

KJBers used to say, [since they knew there are differences, and the odd typo] that "Any KJB is the pure word of God."
It may have worked up until now, but now we have the final presentation of the pure Holy Bible.
*******
Also, at the time of 1611, capitalization was not finalized. Neither was spelling.
This is simple fact.
So the KJB of today is superior to the original because of this.
And the Pure Cambridge edition is superior to other KJBs in this as well.
"Spirit" versus "spirit"
As well as others.
*******
God DID get it right the first time, BUT man has presented error into the text.
See?
But quickly, errors were corrected.
The culmination is in the 1769 and completely finalized in the PCE CIRCA 1900.
We have had the Pure Holy Bible, without any admixture of error of any sort since 1900.
It simply took time for us to recognize this.
*******
In conclusion, any KJB is the pure word of God, as is the Geneva etc.
But only the PCE is the pure word of God in the final presentational form.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

Check Joshua 19:2 and see if you have a pure Bible in this place.
There are several check points other than this verse.

Thank you for your explanation.

[bibleprotector]

Just_a_thought, take care:

KJV1611 is the perfect, inspired Word of God.

Once again, that false accusation. You may have heard it said that KJBOs claim inspiration from 1604 to 1611, but it is a lie. There may be a few KJBOs who really believe that, but "normal" KJBOs do not.

P.S. The KJB is the inspired Word of God in English, but that's because it was faithfully rendered and by special care of godly men by God's providence, who received from the proper tradition what God had preserved since He first gave the Word in Earth.

[bibleprotector]

Vince:

I've never been comfortable with the PCE idea. I think God was smart enough to get it right the first time.

Yes, God got the TEXT and the TRANSLATION right the first time. (It was right when Jeremiah, etc. wrote it.) It was right when it was handed over to the printers in late 1610 or so.

But we know that the TRANSLATORS would have spelt words various ways, as is also exhibited in the printing, which would have already been affected say in 1638. When God got it right in 1611, we agree when we mean the TEXT and the TRANSLATION, however, we cannot say that the typography, spelling etc. was "right" (i.e. presentationally correct) as it now is. God would not be the author of printing mistakes. But He allowed for them in His providential plan, since there would be a seven fold purification of the presentation (never the changing of the actual underlying TEXT or TRANSLATION) of the KJB.

[Diligent]

Guys, let's keep this thread from going too far off-topic. Please take the PCE discussion over to one of the PCE threads, where this has already been discussed. Thanks!

[Brother Tim]

MC, Just, and others interested:
It is well worth your time to go to Matthew's website and read the extensive material there. Then can you understand how magnificently God's plan has been carried out.

MC, you are new here, so I haven't yet discerned your positions. I am not intending anything less than good when I say that your statement, "I think God was smart enough to get it right the first time." is very short-sighted. Just stop and think about it. If your statement is true, then we must revert back to the very first complete English translation. (Wycliffe or Tyndale?) If you are meaning the 1611 printing of the KJB, then we have a two problems. There were two printed that year, and they did not entirely match. Secondly, if you thought the modern versionists' argument of understandability is bad now, what would it be if we went back to the EXACT replica of the first printing of the KJB as our accepted text? There are pictures of it on the web with its original font.

The text was correct, the translation was correct, the presentation had to go through a purification process.

As far as the PCE is concerned, since it has been brought to the surface on this and many other sites, none have disproven its accuracy when compared to other editions of the KJB. On the other hand, students of the issue seem to be drawn to it as the ultimate standard. Others here can bear witness of this fact.

P.S. Sorry, Brandon. I was working on my post when you added your proper admonishment.

[MC1171611]

Well, I must say that I disagree with Bibleprotector when it comes to inspiration. In fact, I've prepared a "sermon" (I hate that word, it sounds so wimpy) and a Keynote presentation (Keynote > PowerPoint) on the topic of Biblical inspiration. I think I'll put up a thread with my study on this topic sometime soon. Suffice it to say that I believe wholeheartedly that God inspired the men that wrote the Bible, not the actual words.

[Brother Tim]

MC, there are a dozen or more verses that reference the WORDS, while only one references the SPEAKERS. If the men were inspired as opposed to the words, then why did the foundational verse on inspiration speak of the written words ("script"ure) and not the speakers?

Do you also apply inspiration to the translators of the KJB?