Yes, Praxean, that is the most fit explanation.

We know that the ABS has never been part of the line of the KJB: London (1611-1629), Cambridge (1629-1769), Oxford (1769-1835), Cambridge (1835-circa 1970s) and Collins (at least 1930s-maybe 2007), but now also Bible Protector website, etc. The three Guardians of the KJB in the nineteenth century were London, Oxford and Cambridge, which together preserved the 1769 edition.

Quote:
What is your definition of "corrupt?" Are you implying or claiming that a spelling update is an corruption? Have you ever seen and examined an edition of the KJV printed by the American Bible Society from 1852-1858?


How do we define "corrupt"?

When it does not come out of the Spirit of God, and is not of the spirit that bears witness in the earth, specifically, the right spirit which through the ages has been in the true Church and true Bibles, and in the Reformation, etc. The spirit which is of Tyndale, of the KJB, of the 1769 Edition or the present KJBO desire for purity.

An update of spelling is not a corruption if it is in line with the above spirit.

This nullifies modern versions. And there are editions of the KJB which have the wrong spirit (ultimately the spirit of antichrist) behind the type of deliberate alterations in spelling. Since the Word is supposed to be pure and perfect to the jot and tittle, changing "Saviour" to "Savior", while may not matter in an ordinary sense, matters very much because it is something which does not align with the historical providences and does not accord with received tradition, and is often, if not always, linked with the wrong "modernist" spirit.

I have never seen any ABS Bible, only read parts of the Report, read various articles on the matter and so forth. But then, I have not seen a 1629 Edition of the KJB either. Nor have I seen any of the Textus Receptus Greek editions. In fact, the earliest Pure Cambridge Edition of the whole Bible I have seen is from 1928. Many KJBO people did not have access to the 1611 Edition (for free) until it became available on the internet within the last few years.

I know the 1852 ABS Edition is very bad because of all the information I have seen about it. I suppose you could point out how many places the ABS edition of any year is close or agrees with the circa 1900 Cambridge Edition as compared to the Oxford, or how Scrivener must have agreed with certain of these American readings. I could also point out how the Revised Version has correct (Cambridge) renderings as compared to the Oxford Edition of the KJB too. The RV is still corrupt and of another spirit, despite the fact that it at times agrees with the pure Word. The NIV at times agrees with the Pure word too. At a wild guess, I would say up to 40% of the time throughout, jot for jot, tittle for tittle.

Rhetorically, how would you define "corruption" in MS copies of the originals which you have never seen? When was the last time a modernist observed an early century pious editor creating a fuller text?

The point I am getting at is that we have interpretations, and we may have correct interpretations despite not knowing all facts, and even when we do not know all facts which are possibly available. (For example, I have not looked in very many modern versions to conclude that they are corrupt. I am sure that they are corrupt in the ones I havent seen and in the places I didnt look at, as much as I saw that they were corrupt in the places I did see.)

The ABS work is impure.