f ETTINGS

OF THE

KING
JAMES BIBLE
A Review with Recommendations
On Its 400th Anniversary

G. A. R I P L I N G E R
 SETTINGS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE:
A Review with Recommendations
On Its 400th Anniversary

T here exists on the market today a variety of King James Bibles. Some
have good historic, linguistic, and Biblical support for their orthography.
Generally speaking, the British publishers (Cambridge, the
Trinitarian Bible Society [TBS]), Oxford, and our American church-based Local
Church Bible Publishers [LCBP] in Lansing, MI have produced the historically
faithful settings. On the other hand, American Publishers, such as Zondervan, Nelson,
and the American Bible Society have introduced modernizations and Americanizations of
spelling and have introduced careless and original capitalization in words, such as ‘Spirit’
and ‘Lord.’ I will address these problems first and then discuss the wonderful settings
that Cambridge and the Trinitarian Bible Society provides.

The Unacceptable American Spelling

Reams of paper could be used, documenting variants in printings by American

printers. In fact, I have an entire office devoted to this subject alone, with walls of books
and a seeming mile of files. Trying to distil the essence of what I have found during
several years of research will be virtually impossible.

As Britain colonized much of the English-speaking world, they brought with them
their British spelling, which now covers the globe. Ethnocentric American publishers are
ignorant of this and have introduced American spelling into the King James Bible. Of
today’s over two billion English-speakers, whether as a first or second language, certainly
a good percentage are not American and have never seen American spelling. American
publishers are also unfamiliar with the fact that some of the words in the KJB have
almost strictly Biblical usage and spelling and therefore cannot be secularized. This can
be verified by examining the Bible’s words in the twenty volume Oxford English
Dictionary. It demonstrates that numerous Bible words are not, in fact, archaic, but
actually are much later in origin and have almost exclusively been used in the Holy Bible.
The word ‘holpen’, for example, has had Biblical usage, almost exclusively, and is not an
archaic form of ‘help,’ which is a much older word.

The following are samples of secular or American spelling that has been
carelessly introduced by American Publishers, beginning with the American Bible
Society, as early as 1856. Zondervan, publisher of the NIV, as one might expect, is
the worst offender. Nelson, publisher of the NKJV, has editions which change the
spelling of many words. They even give a list in the front material of some editions.
These new version (NIV, NKJV) publishers have a vested interest in making the
KJB appear as unstable as possible, to foment the ‘glories’ of their corrupt new
versions. One example will paint a clear picture:

2
The following is an explanation of ‘why’ ‘musick’ cannot be spelled ‘music’ in an
English (not American) Bible.

The English Bible is English. Read that again. It is not American. It is English,
that is, from England. You’ve heard of English tea, English furniture, and English riding
saddles. The Bible was written in England, in English. Noah Webster was adamant about
Americanizing this to show America’s independence. His dictionary of 1828 set about to
do just that. What he and many fail to realize is that the English have reasons for spelling
as they do. Remember, they are the progenitors of English. The Saxons, who adopted the
Roman alphabet, used ‘c’ with its hard sound, like that of ‘k’. But after the Norman
invasion and conquest, ‘c’ before ‘e’, ‘i’, and ‘y’ took the sound of ‘s’. It became
necessary to change this letter in words where it was necessary to retain the ‘k’ sound
before vowels. This created problems, so our ancestors introduced ‘k’ from the Greek,
after ‘c’. In syllables beginning with ‘i’ and ‘e’, ‘k’ is added to ‘c’. We see this in words
such as ‘musick’. Early English writers took both letters, the ‘c’ from the Romans, and
the ‘k’ from the Greeks, to solve the problem. Or should we teach sight-reading instead
of phonics? The former has left millions of students unable to read? Generations ago,
many learned to read from the King James Bible. It still works.

A missionary to Kuwait in the Middle East told me the following story. He taught
at an ‘English’ speaking school, which drew students from every corner of the world,
brought there by their parents, who were employed in the oil industry. All of the students
spelled the word ‘music’ as ‘musick.’ He marked it wrong on all of their papers and was
met by angry parents from every nationality and continent, European, Asian, African, and
etc. He quickly learned that the entire globe, except for America, speaks and spells
‘British’ English.

Spelling changes normally do not change theology. Remember the word ‘word’ is
spelled as ‘woort’ in Dutch and ‘wort’ in German. It has been spelled historically in
southern Europe as palabra, parole, parolle, palavra, palaoulo, parola, and pled. These are
not theological differences. God has not abandoned his word to heresy. But international
English must be maintained worldwide. It would be similar to the U.S. creating their own
time, longitude, and latitude, instead of following the worldwide Greenwich, England
time, longitude and latitude. We think of British English as ‘old fashioned’ but it is in fact
quite modern in all the other countries of the world. The 1200 page book, In Awe of Thy
Word, explains this in complete detail (G.A. Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word:
Understanding the King James Bible, Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications, 2003).

The following are just a few examples of one Zondervan Bible and how they
change the spelling of words and show innovation and carelessness in other ways. A
few are differences seen in good Cambridge or even Oxford editions, but most are
simply Americanized or secular spellings, typos, misplaced commas, or innovative
and careless errors. Generally speaking, the left column is Cambridge or Oxford;
the right column is Zondervan.

3
Abraham Abraham,
After that, the sons after that the sons
alway always
ancle ankle
Ammiel Ammiol
And he will cut wood And we will cut wood
and his sons and his sons,
And if thou For if thou
and land and the land
answered them answered them,
any thing anything
Appii forum Appiiforum
round around
asswage assuage
at Mizpah, at Mizpah
aul awl
Babylon Babylon,
baken baked,
Baptist Baptist,
bason basin
basons basins
Bath-shemesh Beth-shemesh
behoved behooved
Beth-Jeshimoth Beth-jeshimoth
bewrayeth betrayeth
bide abide
broided braided
burnt offerings, burnt offerings
cast four anchors cast forth anchors
Chelup Chelub
cieled ceiled
clift cleft
cloke cloak
crookbackt crookbacked
cuckow cuckoo
daughter in law daughter-in-law
drink offering drink offerings
dwelling place dwellingplace
Elam and Elam, and
enclose inclose
enquire inquire
ensample example
enquired inquired
enquiry inquiry
Ephron dwelt And Ephron dwelt
evildoers evil doers

4
eye sight eyesight
Ezion-gaber Ezion-geber
farther further
father in law father-in-law
father’s fathers’
fatherless fatherless,
fats vats
fetcht fetched
fine refine
finer refiner
fining refining
first fruits firstfruits
firstbegotten first begotten
feet foot
for ever, for ever
free will freewill
fulness fullness
garlick garlic
Gentiles, Gentiles
graff graft
graffed grafted
hand breadth handbreadth
hand weapon handweapon
havock havoc
He, that He that
her’s hers
heretick heretic
highway high way
him, him
hinder part hinderpart
his Spirit his spirit
hoised hoisted
holes holds
holpen helped
holy Spirit holy spirit
house top housetop
Howbeit Howbeit,
hungred hungered
I bear you record I bear your record
idle idol
inclosed enclosed
intreat entreat
intreated entreated
Jerusalem, Jerusalem
jubile jubilee
Juda Judah

5
Judaea, Judaea
knop knob
land of Naomi hand of Naomi
lentiles lentils
lien lain
lookingglasses looking glasses
lords lords,
lothe loathe
loveth loved
lowring lowering
lunatick lunatic
maidservant maidservant,
marishes marshes
Micah Michah
mixt mixed
morter mortar
moth eaten motheaten
mother in law mother-in-law
musick music
Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar,
nessings sneezings
Nicolas Nicholas
Nicolaitanes Nicolaitans
night night,
no thing nothing,
Now the queen Now the queen,
old time saying old time, saying
ought aught
Pannag pannag
payed paid
Perizzites Perizzites,
plains of Moab, plains of Moab
plaister plaster
plaistered plastered
platted plaited
plough plow
pluckt plucked
pourtray portray
pourtrayed portrayed
practise practice
pransing prancing
prayeth prayed
pressfat pressvat
priests of the Levites priests the Levites
pruninghooks pruning hooks
publick public

6
publickly publicly
repayed repaid
rereward rearward
revenges revengers
Sabtechah Sabtechs
Sara Sarah
selfwilled self-willed
serjeants sergeants
shew show
shewbread showbread
shewed showed
shewed shown
shewedst showedst,
shewest showest
shewing showing
sith since
sodering soldering
son in law son-in-law
sope soap
Spirit of God spirit of God (8 times)
Spirit of the LORD spirit of the LORD (20 times)
spue spew
spued spewed
spunge sponge
stablish establish
stript stripped
strowed strewed
subtil subtle
subtilly subtly
supplications supplication
suretiship suretyship
sweet smelling sweetsmelling
sycomore sycamore
Syria and Cilicai Syria, and Cilicai
Syriack Syriac
that I purpose, that I purpose
the king the king,
the LORD: and the LORD and
the river the river
therefore, therefore
throughly thoroughly
to day today
to morrow tomorrow
to night tonight
together, together
traffick traffic

7
travel travail
utter outer
wailing Wailing
wast was
watch tower watchtower
well favoured well favoured
well pleasing wellpleasing,
were were,
whom he had whom ye had
whose soever whosesoever
willing hearted willinghearted
winefat winevat
wise hearted wisehearted
Zebadiah Zevadiah

Other non-Cambridge or non-Oxford KJBs may exhibit changes, such as the

following: Some change ‘darkness’ to ‘blindness’ in 1 John 2:11. Some change chesnut
to chestnut, labour to labor, Saviour to Savior, vapour to vapor, clamour to clamor, colour
to color, armour to armor, behaviour to behavior, odour to odor, rigour to rigor, rumour to
rumor, endeavour to endeavor, neighbour to neighbor, favour to favor, succour to succor,
astonied to astonished, Sion to Zion, Stoicks to Stoics, cockatrice’ to cockatrice’s, grisled
to grizzled, and houghed to hocked. Again, such is American spelling, which will be
unrecognizable by the majority of ‘English-speaking’ people in India, Africa, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, and the Orient, not to mention the European
countries who are now using ‘English’ (not American) as their common language.
Thomas A. Nelson’s King James Bibles often make most of the aforementioned
spelling changes. They also change afterwards to afterward, apparelled to appareled,
armoury to armory, brasen to brazen, with the corresponding omission of the built-in
definition of ‘brass’. They Americanize the spelling to caterpillar, embroidered, defense,
distill, inclosed, forbade, fullness, furbished, grizzled, knob, lentils, marveled, offense,
paid, rebukable, recompense, repaid, reprovable, savor, scepter, sepulcher, Zion,
steadfast, streaked, succorer, traveler, unblamable, outer, willfully, withes, and
worshiped. They introduce non-historical New Testament spellings for Hosea, Isaiah,
Jonah, Elijah, Zechariah, Balak, Jeremiah, Josiah, and Timothy. They randomly put
‘Lord’ in all caps, as LORD, in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 19:5, 10, 18:8, 9, 25, 17:24,
27, John 20:13, 18, 20, 25, 28).
Nelson joins Zodhiates’ KJBs by sometimes changing ‘Jesus’ to ‘Joshua’ in Acts
7:45 and Heb. 4:8. This is an oddity, since the word in every Greek text is the same
Greek word translated ‘Jesus’ throughout the New Testament. Misrepresenting ‘the
Greek’ is D.A. Waite’s The Defined King James Bible, which places ‘Joshua’ in the
margin, thereby denying the pre-incarnate Christ. Nelson changes ‘throughly’ to
‘thoroughly’ in 2 Tim. 3:17. Such changes are manifestly compounded by Nelson’s notes
which invarably charge the KJB with error and suggest corrections which match their
own New King James Version. Bullinger’s Companion Bible, published by Kregel, and
the Classic Note Bible, now published by Jack Schaap, also take liberties with the KJB’s

8
spelling. Each American Bible Society KJB must be examined individually. Some
completely Americanize the spelling on every line. Others use a more correct
orthography. Check Romans 1.
In addition to the KJB editions which update spelling (Nelson, Zondervan, some
ABS, etc.) there are versions, which call themselves KJB, but which are actually modern
updates, changing words entirely! In other words, they are little better than the NKJV.
These include the Evidence Bible by Ray Comfort, the Jimmy Swaggart KJB, and the
Easy Reading KJB, edited by D.A. Waite, Jr., and published by The Global Bible Society
and a group in Goodyear, Arizona. There are other unreliable versions, which call
themselves KJB, but are clearly not. These include David Norton’s New Paragraph
Cambridge Edition from Cambridge and F.H.A. Scrivener’s Paragraph Bible.
The Historic Cambridge (TBS) and Oxford Settings
The good news is that there are those who have preserved the settings of the Holy
Bible which have historic merit, that is, whose orthography can be traced back at well
over two hundred years. There have been microscopic spelling and orthographic varieties
evident in the English Bible for centuries. For example, the reading in Josh. 19:2 “or
Sheba” occurred in the 1611, 1612, and 1613, while “and Sheba” occurs in the Geneva,
Bishops’, KJB 1616, 1629, 1638 and 1769 editions. Since Joshua 19:6 limits the number
of cities to thirteen, “or Sheba” seems correct. If “and Sheba” were correct, that would be
fourteen cities. Genesis 26:33 sheds more light saying, “And he called it Shebah:
therefore the name of the city is Beer-Sheba unto this day.” Such varieties have remained
for centuries because: 1.) They introduce no actual errors into the Bible, as the correct
understanding can be deduced from either reading or the usage throughout the Bible. 2.)
Old Hebrew, Greek, and vernacular editions give no definitive resolutions or the word
could be translated either way, giving generally the same sense (e.g. Isa. 44:20 “on ashes”
or “of ashes” seen in 1611, 1638, and 1701. 3.) The spelling or capitalization of a word
has varied within the Bible itself, among British Bible publishers, as well as in British
culture. The word ‘gray’ for example, has been spelled in England as both ‘gray’ and
‘grey’ for centuries. Neither is patently wrong. But is one more Biblical than the other?
Such questions remain to be thoroughly researched.
The 1611 edition of the King James Bible used both spellings of a number of words
whose spelling is in question today. In the case of some words, such as ‘ensample’ and
‘example,’ both spellings were used in 1611 and both are needed today. In other cases,
both spellings of words were used in the 1611 edition and today’s printers seem to be
choosing one or the other spelling, not both. The 1611 used both ‘cloke’ and ‘cloak’,
‘intreat’ and ‘entreat,’ ‘inquiry’ and ‘enquiry’, ‘mortar’ and ‘morter’, ‘throughly’ and
‘thoroughly’ (Gen. 11:3) and ‘vail’ and ‘vale’. The question remains for us today: ‘Did
they have a reason for this in each case, or was it done because spelling was used to
justify line length? Dictionaries are inconclusive. With the advent of ‘spell check,’
today’s printers are unwisely making global changes in spelling. Yet differences in
spelling may be important. For example, the spelling ‘cloke’ brings up the phoneme ‘oke’
which brings to mind the words ‘choke’ and ‘yoke’ – all words related to the neck, where
a cloke is tied. (We won’t mention modern words which ‘grab’ the throat, like a cloke,
such as ‘smoke’ and ‘toke.’) More research is needed on the subject of sound as it relates

9
to ‘sense’ in the area of Bible words. Oxford and Cambridge have each settled on using
one or the other spelling, not both. Neither reproduces the 1611, which uses both
spellings. Therefore, in a few cases, one publisher cannot claim that the other publisher is
in error.
However, there are a number of differences between the Cambridge/TBS and Oxford
settings, which, when researched, weigh heavily in favor of the settings by TBS and
Cambridge University Press. Although one cannot claim that Cambridge/TBS is ‘right’
and Oxford is ‘wrong,’ the evidence weighs very strongly in favor of Cambridge and the
TBS. The following examples show most of the differences between the Cambridge and
Oxford settings, with the TBS and Cambridge reading having the strongest case every
time. (Rarely, some Cambridge settings match the Oxford in these examples, as will be
discussed later in this paper.) Generally speaking, the first reading is the Oxford; the
second is the Cambridge. The asterisk shows when the Cambridge 1819 reading matches
the Oxford, which demonstrates that the Cambridge and Oxford readings have mixed
over time.
Genesis 15:13
their's
theirs
Genesis 26:20
our's
ours
Genesis 46:12
Zarah*
Zerah
Deuteronomy 11:24
your's
yours
Joshua 13:18
Jahaza*
Jahazah
Joshua 19:2
and Sheba
or Sheba
Joshua 19:19
Haphraim*
Hapharaim
1 Samuel 31:2
Melchi-shua*
Malchi-shua
2 Samuel 21:21
Shimeah*
Shimea
1 Kings 8:56
Lord
LORD
2 Chronicles 33:19
sins
sin

10
Ezra 2:2
Mizpar*
Mispar
Ezra 4:10
Asnapper*
Asnappar
Psalm 107:27
wit's end*
wits' end
Psalm 148:8
vapours
vapour
Proverbs 20:25
enquiry
inquiry (Cambridge/TBS Lg. Print, PCE)/enquiry (Windsor/Concord)
Proverbs 20:29
grey
gray
Ecclesiastes 8:17
farther
further
Jeremiah 34:16
whom he
whom ye
Amos 2:2
Kirioth*
Kerioth
Naham 3:16
fleeth*
flieth
Matthew 2:7
enquired
inquired
Matthew 4:1
spirit
Spirit
Mark 1:19
farther*
further
Luke 6:20
your's
yours
1 Corinthians 4:15
instructers
instructors
Revelation 2:6
Nicolaitanes*
Nicolaitans
Revelation 21:20
chrysolyte
chrysolite

11
There are some other differences between Cambridge/TBS and Oxford settings; a
few examples include:

1) In Exodus 34:23 the Cambridge/TBS text spells “men children” as two words, and the
Oxford text spells “menchildren” as one word.

2) In 2 Kings 19:26 the Cambridge/TBS text spells “housetops” as one word, and the
Oxford text spells “house tops” as two words.

3) In Matthew 26:39 the Cambridge/TBS text says “further” and the Oxford text says
“farther.”

The weakness of the Oxford settings is magnified in some of their Scofield

settings, which are a unique (careless) variety of the Oxford setting. The following are
some of the variants unique to some Scofield settings, when compared to other Scofield
and Oxford settings.

1. Leviticus 14:36 in the Scofield text reads “and all that” and the Oxford text reads “that
all that.”

2. Deuteronomy 22:3 in the Scofield text reads “lost things” and the Oxford text reads
“lost thing.”

3. The Scofield text adds “And” before “When thou dost” in Deuteronomy 24:10.

4. 1 Samuel 17:48 in the Scofield text reads “hastened” and the Oxford text reads
“hasted.”

5. 2 Samuel 16:15 in the Scofield text reads “people of the men” and the Oxford text
reads “people the men.”

6. Romans 8:33 in the Scofield text reads “anything” as one word and the Oxford text
reads “any thing” as two words.

7. Revelation 18:14 in the Scofield text reads “lusteth” and the Oxford text reads
“lusted.”

8. The Scofield text hyphenates some words that are not hyphenated in the Oxford text.
* Genesis 50:10 in the Scofield text reads “threshing-floor.”

* 2 Samuel 12:31 in the Scofield text reads “brick-kiln.”

* Mark 14:14 in the Scofield text reads “guest-chamber.”

* Throughout the Scofield text, sacrifices are made into hyphenated words, such
as burnt-offering, sin-offering, peace-offering, freewill-offering, etc..

12
Cambridge University Press and the Trinitarian Bible Society

C ambridge University and TBS wins hands down in its faithfulness to

preserve the most historic spellings and settings. However, within the
Cambridge/TBS family of Bibles, there exist some very microscopic orthographic
(spelling or punctuation) varieties. These exist because there are no definitive answers as
to which is correct. To the uninitiated, this may seem odd. Why not simply compare them
to a 1611 printing? Recall that there were hundreds of typos in the first setting of the
KJB. It was set by hand, letter by letter, before the invention of prescription glasses or
electric lights. It took many years to discover all of the tiny typos. Some unwisely consult
F.H.A. Scrivener’s The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) Its Subsequent
Reprints and Modern Representatives. According to all scholars, Scrivener confused the
first setting of 1611 with the second setting of 1611 and therefore his analysis is not
authoritative, nor is David Norton’s, A Textual History of the King James Bible, which
sometimes followed Scrivener’s choices. No serious Bible-reading Christian would ever
accept Norton’s ‘new’ KJB text, as seen in his New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which
even he often admits is “speculative” (e.g. A Textual History of the King James Bible, p.
42).

Additionally, the 1611 setting still exhibited the tendency of Germanic languages
to capitalize substantives. This changed soon, but the capitalization of words, such as
‘Spirit,’ exhibits some variety as time went on. This variety was evident in earlier English
Bibles also, which seems to indicate that just as 1 Corinthians 2:11, 12 and 6:17 indicate,
the Holy Ghost is referred to as both the spirit and the Spirit. The context is the
determining factor.

The 1769 edition, done by Blayney, also had its own typos, approximately 116.
The name ‘1769’ is frequently and wrongly applied to digital editions on the internet,
which are simply a digitization of the Cambridge Concord edition, a singular variety of
the Cambridge text. No one has digitized the actual 1769 and it would be pointless to do
so. Much spelling and orthography was finalized in this 1769 edition. Further
modernizations are uncalled for and begin to move the KJB from Biblical and solemn to
the orthography of a common newspaper. Examples might include the change from
‘Counseller’ to ‘Counsellor,’ ‘rasor’ to ‘razor’ and a few other modernizations in the
Concord setting.

Within the Cambridge family there are, generally speaking, three types of
settings: 1.) the Cambridge Concord, which has been digitized by Online Bible. Its
creator, Larry Pierce, generously allows anyone to use it and therefore it is seen in many
modern reference Bibles and several great text-only Bibles, such as the Windsor,
available at avpublications.com. (Pierce’s placement of paragraph marks, notably after
Acts 20:36, is not standard, however.) 2.) Most of the other editions (Turquoise, Cameo,
Large Print etc.), and 3.) the Standard text.

A fourth variety has been presumptuously named the ‘Pure Cambridge Edition’
(PCE). It is an generally out-of-print Cambridge setting, determined to be ‘pure’ by Mr.

13
Verschuur, a young Pentecostal man from Australia. His research is fairly exhaustive,
and he is to be commended for his zeal for a pure Bible. He is a good friend of the King
James Bible, in an era of too many enemies. But his final conclusions, that the Cambridge
setting he uses is in all points superior to other Cambridge settings, cannot be defended,
at every point. On these points he relies on his ‘Pentecostal’ experiences to defend them,
as described in his book. Such non-scriptural and non-historical ‘accidents’ are
inadmissible in this debate. No one will be mislead by any Cambridge/TBS Bible and
none of the setting variants within the Cambridge family can be dismissed
unquestionably. Those who are adamant about such things are generally basing their
conclusions upon a narrower collection and collation of Bibles than those who are less
adamant. The righteous rigor with which King James Bible users have defended the KJB
cannot be carried forward onto a debate between the orthography of one or two words
(i.e. Spirit and Geba), which have seemed to defy historical and theological resolution for
centuries.

The following are the differences in current Cambridge editions. (There seems to be
no point in collating out-of-print editions, except to trace history). This list may not
be exhaustive. (When I say ‘except the Standard,’ I mean the setting sold by
Cambridge and referred to as the Standard Text. It seems to be unique among
Cambridge editions and would require its own collation, which I have not done.)

Gen. 24:57 etc. etc. uses ‘enquire’ (Concord/Windsor) and ‘inquire’ (PCE and all other
Cambridge settings, except the Standard text). The original KJB used both ‘enquire’ and
‘inquire’ in various places, generally using ‘enquire.’ Neither the Cambridge Bibles, nor
any other modern printer makes these fine distinctions. So finger pointing is ‘pointless.’
Therefore the penchant for ‘inquire’ by the PCE is rather weak.
Further research is needed as to the age of the Concord’s spelling and whether Biblical
orthography is repressed by it in the following words.
Numbers 6:5 etc, etc. razor (Concord/Windsor) and ‘rasor’ (PCE and all other
Cambridge Bibles, except the Standard text). The oldest spelling is ‘rasor’ which gives it
more weight. One generally wants to avoid modernizations and Americanizations. This is
one of the very few instances in which the Concord has a more modern spelling than the
1611. However, modern is a relative word, as the spelling ‘razor’ is seen in 1819 in a
Cambridge edition in my collection.
Isa. 9:6 etc. ‘Counsellor’ (Concord/Windsor) and ‘Counseller’ (PCE and all other
Cambridge editions, except the Standard text).
Ezekiel 47:3 etc. ‘ankles’ (Concord/Windsor) and ‘ancles’ (PCE and all other Cambridge
editions, except the Standard text).

Ezra 6:4 etc. ‘expenses’ (Concord/Windsor) and ‘expences’ (PCE and all other
Cambridge editions, except the Standard text).

A few slight textual varieties exist among the Cambridge editions. Run to a variety of
Greek and Hebrew editions and you will find few if any definitive answers.

14
Exodus 23:23 “the Hivites” (1612, 1613, Concord/Windsor) and “and the Hivites”
(1616, 1629 Cambridge, 1638, PCE, and all other Cambridge texts, except the Standard).

2 Sam. 18:29 “Is the” (Concord/Windsor) and “Is the” (PCE and all other Cambridge
texts, except the Standard).

Ezra 2:26 “Gaba” (Concord/Windsor) and “Geba” (PCE and all other Cambridge texts,
except the Standard).

A few variants in punctuation exist in the Cambridge family. For example:

Jeremiah 32:5 has ‘prosper.’ (Concord/Windsor) and ‘prosper?’ (PCE and all other
Cambridge texts, except the Standard).
Mark 2:1 has ‘Capernaum after’ (Concord/Windsor) and ‘Capernaum, after’ (PCE and
all other Cambridge texts, except the Standard).
1 Corinthians 15:27 has “saith all” (Concord/Windsor) and ‘saith, all’ (PCE and all
other Cambridge texts, except the Standard).

The chart to follow shows Cambridge variants, and compares them to the settings
which were done when the KJB translators were still alive. Because of the translator’s
involvement with the settings of the 1616, 1629, and 1638 (Boyce, Ward, et al.), these
settings carry the translator’s authority. The historical Cambridge readings become fairly
obvious by looking at the chart.

Cambridge should examine the slight typographical anomalies which deflect from
their historical text and correspondingly make all of their settings uniform. Thankfully,
Cambridge has been quite agreeable about fixing such things. But remember, their tiny
variants can be multiplied by the scores and scores when an Oxford, Scofield, Nelson,
Hendrickson, Holman, or Zondervan edition is examined. I have found enough non-
sensical and original orthography in the Scofield, Nelson, Hendrickson, Holman, and
Zondervan settings to fill a thick file folder, not a small chart.

15
Tiny Variants in the Cambridge Settings

1611 Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge PCE TBS /Cambridge TBS /Cambridge

1616 1629 1638 (temporarily LG Print Concord (Available
available Text Only in the Windsor and
from LCBP available from Giant print from
as item avpublications.com avpublications.com
#180) and all first-generation
settings from LCBP.
Gen. enquire enquire enquire enquire inquire* inquire* enquire
24:57,
etc.
Ex. the Hivites and the and the and the and the and the Hivites the Hivites*
23:23 Hivites Hivites Hivites Hivites
Num.6:5, rasor rasor rasor rasor rasor rasor razor*
etc.
2 Sam. Is the Is the Is the Is the Is the Is the Is the*
18:29
Ezra Gaba Gaba Gaba Gaba Geba Geba Gaba*
2:26
Ezra 6:4, expences expences expenses expenses expences* expences* expenses
etc.
Isaiah Counseller Counseller Counseller Counseller Counseller Counseller Councellor*
9:6
Jer. 32:5 prosper. prosper. prosper? prosper? prosper? prosper? prosper.*
Ez. 47:3, ancles ancles ankles ankles ancles* ancles* ankles
etc.
Mark 2:1 Capernaum Capernaum Capernaum, Capernaum Capernaum Capernaum, after Capernaum after
after after after , after , after
Acts spirit Spirit Spirit Spirit spirit spirit Spirit*
11:12
Acts spirit spirit spirit spirit spirit spirit Spirit*
11:28
Rom. nations: nations: nations; nations; nations; nations; nations,*
4:18
1 Cor. saith all saith all saith all saith all saith, all* saith, all* saith all
15:27
1 John Spirit Spirit spirit spirit spirit Spirit Spirit*
5:8

*The Cambridge 1819, as represented by the asterisk, has a mix of Cambridge readings.

In the previous chart, I have marked in bold those renderings which seem weaker
or unique, perhaps, but are not necessarily wrong. Again, a more exhaustive timeline
could, in fact, prove some correct. The question often remains unanswerable: Was there a
typo in the 1611, or was it in the 1616, 1629, or 1638, the latter three being serious
attempts by original translators themselves to address typos in the 1611? The PCE and

16
Cambridge Large Print Text Only have four questionable orthographic spots. The
Concord/Windsor also has four questionable orthographic renderings. This leaves neither
a clear favorite from an orthographic view, although the Large Print and PCE are
definitely stronger in all four places where the Concord is marked in bold. A few of the
differences will requite further investigation to resolve them. The question about Geba vs
Gaba stems, in part, from the other usage of the word in Neh. 7:30. It appears that the
typo in the 1611 (Geba) was not caught until 1638 (Gaba). (Both Cambridge, Oxford and all printers
have spots which all concerned admit are typos. Such places are not a part of the chart and the perennial discussion. For example, the
actual typos in the Cambridge Large Print and LCBP ‘180’ series are their use of skekel for shekel (Neh. 10:32) and LORD GOD for
Lord GOD (Jer. 49:5). Such typos are small compared to other settings.)

Spirit or spirit
The capitalization of Spirit varies widely throughout the history of the English Bible.
It also varies widely in Bibles of other languages. For example, in 1 John 5:8 ‘Spirit’ is
capitalized in half of the world’s old pure Bibles, according to a collation done for me by
Dr. Nico Verhoef of Switzerland. A quick random examination shows that ‘Spirit’ is
capitalized in the French Martin (1855), the Italian Diodoti (1641/1825), the Spanish
Valera (1909), the Spanish Reina (1569), the Romanian 1916, the Urdu (1870), the
German Luther of 1565 and1760, the Dutch of 1587, the Statenbjbel of 1637, the Zurcher
of 1531, and the Piscatar of 1684. This mix of Germanic and Romance language Bibles
demonstrates that capitalization in this verse is not based entirely on a Germanic element.

One must remember that the Hebrew language had no lower case letter; Greek only
developed a lower case many years after the New Testament was written. So evidently
God is able to communicate his word by using the context, without upper and lower case
letters.

1 John 5:8 has ‘Spirit’ (Concord, Windsor, and most Cambridge Bibles, including the
large print) and ‘spirit’ (Standard text, and PCE). The context tells the reader what ‘spirit’
is being referenced. In this case, verse 6 is a direct parallel and has always been
capitalized. A study done “line upon line,” while “comparing spiritual things with
spiritual” will answer most questions. For example, Mat. 4:1 should capitalize ‘Spirit,’ as
does its parallel verse in another gospel. (See also Acts 11:12, and 11:28 for varieties of
capitialization for Spirit among Cambridge editions). I examined every usage of the word
‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’ in the entire Bible, throughout history, in both English Bibles and in
other languages. My conclusion is that God seems to have allowed latitude in this area,
perhaps not in every case, but sometimes.

1 John 5:8
Cambridge Large Print Text Only and the Windsor Text Only: “Spirit”
Sundry other printers, including Verschuur’s PCE: “spirit”

Both are correct. English is of West Germanic origin. Even today modern
German still capitalizes substantives (nouns). They have ‘Cat,’ not cat.’ This was seen
clearly in the 1611 edition with its capitalization of several words which are no longer
capitalized today. It capitalized all three words, ‘Spirit,’ ‘Water’ and ‘Blood’ in 1 John

17
5:8. Subsequent Bibles began to drop the Germanic capitalization of certain words.
Subsequent Bibles show a variety here, some capitalizing none of these three words and
some only capitalizing Spirit. At our juncture in the history of the English language, I
personally feel more comfortable with ‘Spirit’, because it matches verse 6, the perfectly
parallel verse. Those who have read In Awe of Thy Word will see the familiar pattern of
parallel verses which contain parallel words.

1 John 5:6 “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that
beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1 John 5:8 “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Verse 7 begins with ‘For’ and verse 8 begins with “And,” thereby showing the
connection between verses 6, 7, and 8. Now wasn’t that simple. One did not need to get,
as I did, some $100,000 worth of antique and rare Bibles to store at the bank; one simply
needed to look at the context. God often repeats himself as a double check. Romans 8:16
is a good cross reference. It says, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God…”

Unfortunately, Mr. Verschuur (PCE) insists that lower case ‘s’ is correct in 1 John
5:8. In his discussion of 1 John 5:8, he states that his choice is based upon what he calls
‘Pentecostal doctrine,’ which doctrine, he says, is contained in his ‘Pure’ Cambridge
Edition.” His misunderstanding of the usage of the word ‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’, based upon
his Pentecostal theology, causes him to be adamant about his decision here. Having
looked at Bibles worldwide and back through time, I can confirm that both lower case
and capital ‘S’ can be correct. Neither is an error.

The Bible clearly uses both ‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’ to refer to the Holy Spirit. 1
Corinthians 2:11, 12 says, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of
man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God…”.

As I did with each variant, I spent months looking at Bibles from the Gothic (1st
century), to the Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Matthews, Geneva, Bishops. Each pure
antique version of the French, Italian, German, Spanish and other worldwide Bibles were
examined by myself or Dr. Verhoef of Switzerland. I concluded that the use of lower case
or upper case in 1 John 5:8 verse was a head-on draw. The capital ‘S’ went over the top
in my investigation, but only very slightly. This leads me to conclude that both are
acceptable in 1 John 5:8.

I examined the capitalization of ‘S’ for Spirit in its almost every occurrence in the
Bible, in most of these aforementioned editions. I concluded that God had allowed
varieties, so apparently, if it varied, it was a linguistic and orthographic element, not a

18
theological element. However, I do feel strongly that Gen. 1:2 and Mat. 4:1 should be a
capital ‘S.’ There are other instances like this.

The Solution
Prayer is the missing ingredient in this debate. Some years ago, I noticed that a
few Cambridge editions did not capitalize ‘S’ in 1 John 5:8. So I prayed daily for many
years that they would fix it. I never contacted Cambridge, nor discussed it with anyone
else, as I did not want to influence the issue. I wanted God to have his way. Cambridge
fixed it when someone I did not know contacted them. For those who would squabble
vehemently about such inconsequential things as the spelling and orthography of words, I
would suggest we have a praying competition, and see what the Lord does. I say
inconsequential, because the two days previous to writing this article, I was collating the
existing Swahili Bible. These dear folks have not had anything but a Westcott-Hort text
since 1883. If you can help us restore their 1879 New Testament, we would be tickled
(http://www.holybiblefoundation.org). Their Swahili Union Bible says in Eph. 3:9, “God
who created all things.” Our KJB (by ANY printer) says, “God who created all things by
Jesus Christ.” The spelling of ‘inquiry’ seems rather immaterial, when millions
(billions?) have nothing but a lacerated Westcott-Hort Bible. I recommend keeping
whatever KJB one has, until it falls apart. Hopefully, you will wear out a Bible every few
years, as I do. If you cannot wait to replace your Bible, mail the old one to A.V.
Publications, P.O. Box 280, Ararat, VA 24053 and they will mail it to Ethiopia. A
missionary to that country told us that he spoke to a Bible college there and told them
about the omissions in the NIV. They all began crying, since the NIV is the only bible
they have. Any KJB will be an improvement.

If you are like me and like things to be either black or white, you must remember
that all variants in the Cambridge/TBS family are, in the main, white, whichever setting
one chooses. (The New Paragraph Cambridge Bible is not acceptable.) Believe me, I
entered this two year examination, expecting to find a simple and clear ‘winner.’ At its
conclusion, I can not make it as simple as I would have liked to make it, with all of the
resources of the Holy Bible Foundation and my own huge antique Bible collection (1616,
1629, 1638, etc, etc..

After several years of collation, my personal choice is the Cambridge Large Print
Text Only edition. It is available at http://www.avpublications.com. I quickly can check
any Bible and look for a few tell-tale spots: I look for a capital ‘S’ in Gen. 1:2, Mat. 4:1,
and 1 John 5:8. Holman does not capitalize ‘spirit’ in the latter two. Hendrickson
capitalizes all three correctly, but spells ‘broided’ as ‘braided’ in 1 Tim. 2:9. Does the
Bible teach that it is wrong to braid one’s hair? However, to ‘embroider’ decorative
elements throughout the fabric of the hair is a costly and time-wasting vanity. The
Cambridge Text Only Large Print has orthography that is tops. It is the PCE (so-called
Pure Cambridge text) except that it correctly, I believe, capitalizes ‘S’ in 1 John 5:8. The
PCE with a lower-case ‘s’ is temporarily available from Local Church Bible Publishers,
among their wide selection (Item 180). As I said before, neither ‘s’ is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’
in this verse, as the Lord has allowed both in a wide variety of languages.

19
Notes vs Text Only
The Text Only TBS/Cambridge Bibles, which include the Large Print, the
Windsor, and the Giant Print (all available at avpublications.com) have none of the
horrible notes which perch in the margin, waiting to bite and devour your faith. Text-only
Bibles give only the text. I avoid any Bible that has marginal notes, most notably those
which purport to tell what the Greek (Gr.) or Hebrew (Heb.) say, since they inevitably
follow the corrupt Greek text and lexicons and therefore generally match the new
versions. For example, The Defined King James Bible, from The Bible for Today,
sometimes matches new versions in its definitions, as even KJB critics have observed
(e.g. http://a-voice.org/discern/dkib.htm). For example, Waite’s Defined KJB defines
“begotten” as ‘uniquely related,’ a similar rendering to that of the new versions, corrupt
foreign editions, and lexicons (e.g. 1 John 4:9, John 3:16 et al.). ‘Unique,’ the new
version word, does not mean the same thing as ‘only.’ If I had purple hair, I would be
‘unique.’ ‘Unique’ can mean special or odd, not necessarily singular. ‘Related’ does not
confer the immediate sense of the physical generation of the Son of God. An aunt is
related to a niece. A step-father might me called ‘uniquely related’ to his step-son. The
words ‘only begotten’ say enough and can easily be distorted by man-made definitions.
The context defines the words. The Bible’s previous use of the words “only” and
“begotten” clearly define the word for Bible readers.
Even Bibles from Cambridge with notes, such as the Concord and the Cameo,
follow the corrupt manuscripts when they reference Greek or Hebrew. For example, in
the note next to “the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:1,
all Cambridge noted Bibles, such as the Concord and the Cameo edition, challenges the
KJB saying, “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” Such a note represents only the critical text;
the Textus Receptus does not read that way, but says “the righteousness of God and our
Saviour” (i.e. Elziver and Scrivener, see Berry’s T.R. note G, p. 602). Jesus Christ is
“God,” but he is not everyone’s “Saviour,” hence the word “our” must attach itself to the
word “our Saviour Jesus Christ,” as has historically been seen in English Bibles, such as
the Geneva and the Tyndale. Conflicts in Greek texts can often be solved by following
typical Biblical usage. The phrase “the righteousness of God” (not “our God”) is seen in
the Bible five times. In his book, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (p. 78) Lewis
Foster, a member of both the NKJV and NIV committees, confesses that the new
versions’ construction in both Titus (2:13) and Peter was chosen by “liberal” translators
to bolster their case that Paul and Peter did not actually write these books. What point are
notes, which the “unlearned” may believe? (2 Peter 3:16).

In fact, an entire book could be written about the faith-killing notes in the Scofield
Bible, which falsely claim that the KJB is wrong in numerous places (e.g. 1 John 5:7).
How many know that some printings of the current “Old” Scofield have added cross-
references from the failed ‘New’ Scofield board of editors? Image ─ a dispensational
Bible, with references added by non-dispensational five-point Calvinists, who were on
new version committees (e.g. NIV). An ad for The KJV Old Scofield Study Bible,
Standard Edition, in the latest Christian Book Distributors catalogue says, “original notes
― newly augmented….” (March/April, 2011, p. 20). If it is “augmented,” that is, ‘added
to,’ then it is not ‘Scofield’s.’ I hope no one ever offers my books and calls them “newly
augmented.” The latest and most heinous development, regarding the printing of the

20
Scofield Bible, is the editorship and take-over by John R. Kohlenberger III. He has been
employed by the NIV’s owners for many years as a developer of NIV study Bibles and
concordances. I debated Kohlenberger many years ago on a west coast radio station. We
each presented our case separately ― his, for the new versuibs, and mine for the KJB. He
has been the main speaker for the Christian Booksellers’ annual meeting, giving talks on
‘how to draw customers away from the KJB’! The ad for his Scofield Study Bible says the
original Scofield notes only “form the core” of his re-work. He is one of those black t-
shirt type of evangelical liberals, hardly what one expects to find editing a Bible,
historically noted for its conservatism. If John Kohlenberger’s name is on a book, we
conservatives do not want it. No knowing the details, Scofield’s critics uncharitably bring
up Scofield’s divorce and remarriage ninety days later, all while he was a saved pastor.
This obviously did not affect the usefulness of his writings (Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield,
Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1988, pp. 90, 100 et al.).

A second book could be written about the cross-references in many Bibles. Some
references teach the amillennial point of view, baptismal regeneration, liberal-minded
theology, and that the church replaces Israel. I believe that apostasy begins in a noted
Bible. Some are excellent, as reference books. But for ones daily Bible reading, mixing
the voice of fallible men on the same page as the voice of our holy God is courting
danger in some cases.

Urgent Action Needed

A foreboding move may be at hand. Cambridge charged David Norton to examine
the Cambridge text and determine one uniform text for them to print. His liberal bend is
evident in the massive and idiosyncratic changes and modernizations he introduced. It is
no longer even remotely related to the historic Cambridge text, in my opinion. It omits
“of God” in 1 John 5:12, “godly” in 1 Tim. 1:4 and many other words. It denies the
Sonship of Christ in Mat. 12:23, just like the new versions. It even follows the critical
Greek text on occasion (e.g. Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible, p. 336).
Norton created this text, at the direction of Cambridge, with the goal of using it to replace
all other Cambridge settings. It is imperative that concerned Christians make their voices
heard, so that the pure historic Cambridge settings continue to be printed, with no
modernized spelling and orthography (after the eighteenth century) and none of Norton’s
emendations. Such an uncertain development by Cambridge makes the support of local
churches who are printing this settting so important. We cannot rely on ‘the world’ to
provide Bibles to Christians. Cambridge is printing the Koran also. Cambridge is still
providing their historic settings now, but our voices must be heard so that they will
continue to do so.

Summary
In summary, if you are looking for a simple answer to this somewhat perplexing
problem of what setting to select, the answer is ‘TBS and Cambridge,’ particularly the
Large Print Text Only setting. A.V. Publications could sell scores of King James Bibles if
making money was their goal. However, they sell only a few Bibles: the TBS/Cambridge
Large Print, the Windsor, and the Giant Print. Why sell only a few Bibles? These are the
only Bibles that I can recommend and which I have examined word for word. All of them
are text-only, of course. The price for the TBS/Cambridge Large Print Text Only is the

21
cheapest available. Ideally, the local church should print the Bible, as a ministry of their
church. If you would like a missionary representative from a local church who does this
to visit your church and bring a wide variety of styles of leathers and sizes, contact
Stephen Shutt at [email protected]. This church’s bindings and bindings from
the TBS/Cambridge (and Windsor) available at avpublications.com are actually stronger
and better than the Cambridge bindings.

This paper was written with the hopes that Bible publishers (Nelson, Zondervan,
Hendrickson, Holman, ABS, and even Oxford etc.) and distributors will wake up to the
lax attitude now evident in their unique or contemporary King James Bible settings, and
1.) follow a Cambridge text, as recommended in this paper, in their printings and 2.)
distribute Bibles that follow such a standard, so as not to foment the confusion. No
orthographic variant in the Cambridge tradition diminishes the integrity of the meaning
communicated by the Holy Bible (excluding their New Cambridge Paragraph Bible).
That statement may be true of most of the variants of other printers. Errors by a few
printers do not negate God’s inspired words, which are still available widely. Our Bible’s
inspiration and preservation is in no way dampened, because it is the words, which are
inspired, not their spelling or orthography. Spelling changes normally do not change
theology. Remember the word ‘word’ is spelled as ‘woort’ in Dutch and ‘wort’ in
German. It has been spelled historically in southern Europe as palabra, parole, parolle,
palavra, palaoulo, parola, and pled. These are not theological differences. But God is not
the author of confusion and confusion is manifest by those printers who swerve from the
norm with their settings. The public is becoming justly alarmed and their voice should be
heard. Those providing faithful international editions will join those acclaimed by the
Lord.

“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.”
Psalm 68:11

22