If correctness exclusivity were proven, one would be responsible to support what could be called the “PCE 1769 Bible”; that is, one would be responsible to support the 1769 Bible with superordination of the Pure Cambridge Edition where the two texts differed.  The few Pure Cambridge Edition textual differentiae would have to be provided in the margins of the 1769 Bible along with an explanation of the superordination of the PCE text.

At this point in time, we have no proof of the correctness exclusivity of the Pure Cambridge text.  If we were to obtain such proof, we would switch to the PCE 1769 Bible as explained above.

The key to our whole discussion and position is this:

The truth is not a text; a text is a conveyor of thought; thought is always a reflection of more than a text; only in the human mind does that thought exist as truth.

The page you are reading provides the bare essentials of our final, crucial scholarship.  As the Lord permits, we will be elaborating on the principles expressed on this page.  Finally, those who believe they have found the perfect English text beware!  It is the history of thought and scholarship that there has always been a credible challenge (we said “credible,” not “overwhelming”) to any perfect English text.  Those who rest primarily in scholarship will, thus, often find themselves at least momentarily thrown off balance.  To those who wish to be deep defenders of the truth we say:

Your strength lies in the aurum verses of the Scriptures.

“Pure Old Cambridge Edition” Friday, November 13, 2009 12:44 AM (GMT – 6) Update

Before we begin, we wish to point out to everyone that we were the first anywhere to point out the existence and validity of post-1769 transdialectal changes to the King James Bible.  On previous web pages we used the following generic term:

Post-Oxford 1769 King James Bible

For a few examples of our use of this term years ago, see the following web pages:

// // // // // // // //

Therefore, what this section of this web page describes is not the discovery and recognition of the fact of post-1769 transdialectal changes but, rather, specific transdialectal changes that have been brought to our attention by other researchers.