Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Version - Clearing the Myths

I recently asked Pastor Bryan Ross (link to my question):

I noticed something in your notes that I myself have been puzzling about for about the last year or two. What is the actual first publication date for the PCE? Usually I hear "around 1900", which strikes me as odd. Surely someone who loves the PCE (perhaps Mr. Kinney?) should have been able to identify the first printing of that edition by now.

Pastor Ross responded by informing me that he would begin addressing that very question in an upcoming lesson.  He has now responded with a video lesson (link to video).  The accompanying notes (link to the notes) are a treasure trove of information, which directly and thoroughly answers my question.

The key insight from that article, as it relates to my question, is this:

The first “definitive” PCE was actually the 2006 electronic edition.

In more detail:

As the Guide describes the process, Verschuur and his associates spent several years comparing historical Cambridge/Collins printings, reconciling differences, and correcting perceived errors. This project culminated in 2006, when Verschuur completed what he calls the first truly authoritative PCE text. The Guide states plainly, “The electronic file was finalised… July 2006.” This finalized electronic edition is the first version that the Guide presents as complete, perfect, and definitive. In effect, the PCE—understood as a precise, unified, authoritative text—came into existence not in the early 1900s but in 2006, through deliberate editorial reconstruction.

The "Guide" refers to Matthew Verschuur's Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition. Bible Protector, 2013 (link to source).

I suppose that this July will mark the 20th anniversary of the creation of the PCE, an edition that has obtained the support of many King James advocates in this century.  I am unaware of any response as yet from Mr. Verschuur; at this time of this writing, Pastor Ross's comments are only a few days old, so it's not as though Mr. Verschuur has had a full opportunity to respond to them.  His initial response seems to have been to accuse Pastor Ross of unspecified "misinterpretations and wrong implications" (link to source). As a minor aside, I would like to hear from Will Kinney regarding his claim that his standard (which I believe he says is "the Cambridge," by which I think he means the PCE, though perhaps he means a different Cambridge edition) was around before he was born.

I noticed that Mr. Verschuur also posted a video, "9 Decades of PCES," after he left his comment alleging misrepresentation.  His video points to a printed 1911 KJV printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society on the Cambridge University Press. Mr. Verschuur asserts that this is an example of the PCE.  His justification for this assertion is that the copy in question "matches a set of readings that are consistent across the 20th century." He also asserts that there is "a continuum of the same editorial set of readings in the 1911, the 1990s..."  and argues that the question is not when the PCE was first printed but whether there is a "collective of editions with the same set of readings."  Mr. Verschuur acknowledges that there may be errors in the editions, which he characterizes as "mistakes somewhere in the typesetting."  He asks: "Does that make a Bible invalid?" and he answers it: "Of course not."  So, even after pointing to the 1911 printing, Verschuur does not say that the 1911 cannot be further improved.  Instead, Verschuur reserves that for what he refers to as a "text file," presumably the output of July 2006 (or perhaps even a later date, if Verschuur detected any perceived errors in the 2006 file).

From my standpoint, while it is interesting that Mr. Verschuur identifies a specific 1911 printed edition as an example of the PCE, since PCE is defined as merely any one of potentially numerous and at least multiple editions that share a collection of readings that were selected by Mr. Verschuur.

If the standard of perfection is complete perfection, then it's hard to see how a version that falls short of that perfection in something as seemingly trivial as a "full stop" ("."), which is one of Mr. Verschuur's examples, is perfect.

Mr. Verschuur is right to say that it is not reasonable to say that the Bible is not a "valid" Bible because of the absence of a period.  However, that also applies to other minor errors, and there is no bright line between major and minor errors.  I think we would all agree that the so-called "wicked Bible" (a printing of the KJV that had "thou shalt commit adultery") contains an error that is major in one sense and yet also minor in another sense.

Prior to his "9 Decades" video, Mr. Verschuur posted (within the last month or so) three other videos: a three minute video showing different printings of what he asserts are examples of the PCE (link to video) and two two-hour long videos, respectively parts 1 and 2, of "Assessing the assessor of the Pure Cambridge Edition position" (part 1)(part 2).  There is also a three-minute video called "Noble Empire," which appears to be a Udio-generated song, but with no argumentative substance (link to video).

Interestingly, one of the allegedly PCE Bibles shown in the first video is printed on the occasion of the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but is only a New Testament.   Given that 6 of the 12 markers identified by Verschuur are in the Old Testament, I suppose it's naturally easier for a New Testament to qualify if one doesn't have to have the markers for books that are not included.  Of course, that logic leads to the absurd result that my Scottish metrical psalter is a PCE printing, since the 12 PCE criteria do not include any markers in Psalms.

In the "Assessing the assessor" videos, Verschuur names Bryan Ross and offers some responses to earlier videos in Ross's series (the video by Ross, which I've linked above, is not the first of the series).  Interestingly (to me), Verschuur complains that he's being misrepresented, while simultaneously making comments suggesting that his own edition (which he says he brought out in 2007, "And so you can actually see that it was then in 2007 when I brought out my website that an electronic copy of the Pure Cambridge Edition was published.") is the standard and suggesting that others don't agree because they don't want there to be any standard.

Unfortunately, for Verschuur, he does not seem to be able to engage the same level of dialog or research as Pastor Ross.  Instead of pointing to concrete errors in Ross's research or identifying flawed arguments offered by Ross, Verschuur resorts to what can best be described as hand-waving, such as by asserting that Ross is offering a "human rationalistic exercise" (around 13 minutes in in part 1).  He shortly thereafter says he doesn't want to say that Ross is "a rank Modernist or heretic or something like that."  His meandering thoughts, however, do not appear to provide any concrete rebuttal to anything that Ross offered.  One could adequately, I think, summarize Verschuur's response as consisting of a reiteration of positions already mentioned by Ross coupled with statements suggesting that somehow the rhetorical flavor of his position has been misrepresented through accurate but selective quotation of his comments.

After listening to both parts of Verschuur's "Assessing the assessor" video, I think the biggest question that his position poses is this: how does Verschuur know that the PCE is perfect (as to spelling, capitalization, punctuation, italics, and so on)? Likewise, why hesitate to use the word "error" to describe a deviation from this standard (e.g., in part 2, around 1 hr, 36 minutes in, he states: "So that's why I say here that the we're talking about the pure Cambridge edition that not only is the edition correct, which is an editorial form, but then in a copy editing sense of even having no typographical error and resolving edition variation errors. I wouldn't really use the word error so much as they're not error errors like 'oh no that's an error.' I'm just using the word error as in like it's not the actual standard. And I think probably I've consciously tried to not use the word error to mean that because it would lead people like Brian Ross to say, 'Whoa, he said there's errors in PCE printings. Oh no.' Like he's would totally be misrepresenting things to say that. But no, that's not what I'm talking about.")?

Finally, Mr. Verschuur does protest the idea that his Pentecostalist views are the basis for his identification of the PCE.  However, it's hard to come up with any better explanation for Verschuur's seemingly arbitrary identification of 12 marks of the PCE, half of which have to do with the capitalization of the word "Spirit" (or "spirit").  I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that Verschuur's background pre-commitment to Pentecostal/Continuationist views does not necessitate his seemingly arbitrary list of marks of the PCE, but mostly because of how arbitrarily the marks seem to be selected.  For Bryan Ross's arguments how Mr. Verschuur's Pentecostal beliefs influence his determination of which readings are "pure," see Pastor Ross's Lesson 273, "PCE Pillars and Pentecostalism" and accompanying notes (link to notes).

For all his complaining about being cast as extreme, Mr. Verschuur does not hesitate to accuse Pastor Ross: "But Brian Ross is the other extreme of almost compromising with with sort of modernistic thought. Like he'll happily go to the Hebrew and Greek. he'll happily you know sort of try to say well additions don't matter. So he's on the other end. Now I'm talking in the spectrum of what we'll call believing the King James Bible but he's really on an extreme edge and there's plenty of stuff he says is great but he's still like on the edge as far as that." (around 1 hr, 55 minutes into part 2) Imagine the extreme of being happy to go to the Hebrew and Greek! Of course, a few seconds later, Verschuur seems to take it back with "it's not that extreme what he's saying ...."

Scale of Differences between Texts

The Center for New Testament Restoration offered an interesting tool that allows the user to compare two witnesses to the text of the New Testament.  They don't offer all the possible witnesses, or even all the possible Greek witnesses, but they do offer an impressive collection.  

Tale these results with a grain of salt, because they are automated results, and because it's hard to put much weight in their outcome.  However, I ran a few comparisons on P47, one of the earliest witnesses to the text of Revelation.

P47 vs. 01 (Codex Sinaiticus)

Variant unit differences: 257 of 525

Word differences: 425 / 3138 (13.54%)

P47 vs. the KJTR (I believe this is Scrivener's TR)

Variant unit differences: 248 of 525

Word differences: 359 / 3138 (11.44%)

P47 vs. 02 (Codex Alexandrinus)

Variant unit differences: 233 of 521

Word differences: 330 / 3138 (10.52%)

P47 vs. NA (28th, I think)

Variant unit differences: 200 of 525

Word differences: 279 / 3138 (8.89%)

As you can probably see, I've sorted the results in terms of decreasing word differences.  With that in mind, it is interesting to see the overall similarity amongst the various witnesses and particularly the fact that by this measure (the significance of which has not been established), the KJTR is closer to P47 than Codex Sinaiticus is. 

I wanted to the same comparison with the NA as the base text, but the challenge is that there is not an option to limit to the text of Revelation.  Nevertheless, here are a few of the comparisons:

NA vs. KJTR

Variant unit differences: 6207 of 20991

Word differences: 7992 / 137606 (5.81%)

NA vs. 01

Variant unit differences: 4466 of 20991

Word differences: 5689 / 137606 (4.13%)

NA vs. 02

Variant unit differences: 4379 of 18346

Word differences: 5692 / 119102 (4.78%)

NA vs. 03 (Codex Vaticanus)

Variant unit differences: 1946 of 18816

Word differences: 2239 / 121223 (1.85%)

Finally, we might as well compare the KJTR to the big three:

KJTR vs. 01

Variant unit differences: 8702 of 20991

Word differences: 11563 / 137939 (8.38%)

KJTR vs. 02

Variant unit differences: 5094 of 18346

Word differences: 6383 / 119102 (5.36%)

KJTR vs. 03

Variant unit differences: 6823 of 18816

Word differences: 8758 / 121223 (7.22%)

Once again, a word of caution.  Statistics can be fun, but there is a limit on the value of counting "variant unit differences" and "Word differences". 

Tertullian, On Prayer - Some Highlights

The following quotations are from the translation of Tertullian's On Prayer, as translated by Alistair Stewart-Sykes in "Tertullian, Cyprian, & Origen: On the Lord's Prayer" published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, as volume 29 of their Popular Patristic Series.  My comments follow each section.  One overarching observation, however, is that although Tertullian goes in detail through the Lord's Prayer, and discusses other New Testament teachings on prayer, such as head coverings for women, Tertullian does not bring up the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, which is found in the majority of later manuscripts of Matthew's gospel.  

Section 1, p. 41:

Whatever was of the old has either been transformed, as has circumcision, or else completed, as the remainder of the law, or fulfilled, as prophecy has been, or perfected as is faith itself.

Tertullian does not spell it out here, but this seems to be an early reference to baptism taking the place of circumcision.

Section 1, p. 42:

Therefore the words in which John taught them to pray are not extant, because earthly things should yield to heavenly.

Notice the point behind Tertullian's point.  The reason for what is recorded in the New Testament is to found the New Testament church and its religious practices.  That's why John's teachings on prayer aren't provided to us, because they were not meant for us.

Section 1, p. 42:

Therefore let us consider, blessed ones, his heavenly wisdom firstly regarding his instruction to pray in secret, by which he both demands that a person believe, in that he he should be confident in the ability of almighty God to hear and to see in houses, and indeed in a hidden chamber, and desires a proportionate faith, that he should trust him who is everywhere to hear and to see, and should offer his devotion to him alone.

Notice that what Tertullian is saying is that we should offer the devotion of prayer to God alone.

Section 2, pp. 42-43:

For that matter the Lord most frequently proclaimed to us that God is Father, indeed, he also demanded that we should call nobody "father" on earth, except him whom we have in heaven.

Considering how much Roman Catholics try to downplay this particular command, it is interesting to see Tertullian doubling down on it.

Section 2, p. 43:

However, when we say "Father" we are also naming God in a form of address which demonstrates both devotion and power. Moreover the Son is invoked in the Father, for he says: "I and the Father are one". Nor is the mother, the church, neglected since the mother is found within the Father and the Son, for the name of the Father and Son find their meaning in her. Therefore under one term and with one name we honor God along with those who are his, both recalling God's commandment and scorning those who have forgotten the Father.

Notice that it does not even occur to Tertullian to say that Mary is our mother, or anything like that.  Instead, he focuses on the church being our mother.

Section 3, p. 44:

Besides this, as regarding our own request, when we say, "Let your name be hallowed," we ask that it be hallowed among us who are in him and, at the same time, in others whom the grace of God still awaits, so that we should be obedient to the command to pray for all, even for our enemies. Consequently, as a result of this terse expression, we do not say "Let it be hallowed in us," but manage to say: "in all people."

Notice Tertullian making the distinction between believers and unbelievers as being God's grace.  It's hard to tell how consistent he is on this point, but it's certainly a valid distinction.

Section 7, p. 47:

The Lord knew that he alone was without wrong, so he taught us to pray: "Pardon us our debts."

Once again, notice that it does not occur to Tertullian that there might be people, such as the mother of our Lord, who are sinless.  The Pelagian errors were apparently not yet propagated.

Section 8, p. 48:

For he did not order even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son for the sake of putting his faith to the test, but of demonstrating it, so that he might provide an example of the instruction which he would in time law down, that one should not hold even one's children more precious than God.

The first part of this claim is thought-provoking.  Certainly, God already knew what Abraham would do, so it's true that the main purpose was the demonstration of Abraham's faith. 

Section 9, p. 49:

God alone could teach us the manner in which he would have us pray. Therefore, the practice of prayer is laid down by him, and when it was brought forth from the divine mouth it was animated by his spirit.

This is also a key observation.  We cannot make up our own worship practices.  God alone can teach us how to worship him.  Thus, the justification for any worship practice must come from God.

Section 14, p. 51:

Hereditary criminals, aware of their ancestral guilt, they dare not lift them up to the Lord lest some Isaiah should cry out, lest Christ should shrink from them. But we do not simply lift them up but spread them out in imitation of the passion of the Lord, so confessing Christ as we pray.

Tertullian evidently believes that guilt can be inherited.

Section 15, pp. 51-52:

But since we have touched upon one matter of empty expression it will not be irksome to observe other practices likewise, which are reasonably to be discredited as vanity, since not one of them is authorized by any injunction, whether dominical or apostolic. Things of this nature are to be considered not religion but superstition, they are affected and forced, are not reasonable service but fussiness, and should surely be suppressed, if only because they put us on a level with the gentiles. For it is the practice of some of them to make their prayer with their coats removed. It is thus that they attend their idols. But if this were the right thing to do, surely the apostles would have included it when they taught on the manner of prayer, unless some might think that Paul left is cloak behind with Carpus when he was praying! Perhaps God might not hear those with their coats on, God who listened to the saints in the furnace of the Babylonian king when they prayed in their pantaloons and their hats!

Notice the need for rules about worship to come from the Lord or the apostles.  Notice also that the absence of such a rule proves its lack of importance.

Section 16, p. 52:

And again, there are those whose custom is to sit down then the prayer is sealed. I perceive no reason, except one which children might offer. What is it? If Hermas, whose writing is called The Shepherd, or something like that, had not sat upon his bed when his prayer was finished but had done something else, would we claim that this too should be made an observance. Surely not. He says this simply as part of the story, and not as an instance of discipline. Otherwise we would only be able to pray in a place where there was a bed, and it would make it contrary to Scripture if anyone sat on a chair or a bench.

It seems to me that Tertullian does not accept the authority of the Shepherd of Hermas, but at the same time he seems to suggest that it is being treated like Scripture.

Section 16, p. 53:

Since it is disrespectful to sit down in the presence of, and in spite of the presence of, one who is greatly to be revered and esteemed, how much more is it irreligious to act in such a way when in the sight of the living God, whilst the angel of prayer is still standing by? Or are we protesting to God because prayer has tired us out?

Reverence is certainly an important aspect of worship.  I would note to oppose Tertullian here, that it seems that the apostles allowed seated worship (see James 2:3 for example).

Section 21, p. 56:

Those who allow immunity of the head to virgins seems to make their case on the basis that the apostle does not mention "virgins" but "women" as being veiled, thus not mentioning gender by saying "females" but rather the class of the gender, by saying "women".

This distinction may also be one of the reasons that Mary was so surprised to be told that she was blessed among "women", since she had not taken that step toward being a woman as distinct from a maiden. 

Section 23, p. 60:

However, the custom received is that on the Lord's day of resurrection alone we should avoid not only this [TF: in context, this refers to kneeling], but every attitude of concern, postponing business matters as well so that we might yield no place to the Devil. The same is true in the period of the Pentecost, which we likewise mark through the dignity of rejoicing.

It's interesting to notice the day or rest treatment that the Lord's day is being given, though it's not perfectly clear to me if he means every Sunday or only once annually.

Does Grace Sherman rescue David Allen? Or does Allen's Appeal Backfire? What does it mean that 1 John 5:1a is "condition" and 1 John 5:1b is "consequence"

Previously (link), we considered David Allen's putative attempt to respond to James White's challenge regarding providing a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  We observed that Allen provided both a written response and a video.  In this post, we consider the most central part of that response that has not been addressed to date.

The following is a transcript from Allen's video (starting around 38 minutes, 47 seconds into the video):

Number four, semantic structural analysis. As linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate with respect to 1 John 5:1, the semantic structure of the two propositions, proposition one, if anyone believes that Jesus is God's anointed, and proposition two, he is the one whom God has caused to live spiritually, i.e. be regenerated. Now notice this: semantically what is being communicated there -- the communication relationship there is one of condition consequence from a semantic standpoint. The condition is faith and precedes the consequence, which is regeneration. This is the natural way to interpret the verse. 

This closely follows p. 3 of Allen's written response, so closely that we can say he's just reading his written response:

There another place in the video where Allen makes reference to his position on this point. Starting around 21 minutes, 39 seconds into the video, Allen responds to Flowers by saying (transcription, as with the previous transcription, is Youtube's, lightly cleaned up by the present author):

Right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and raise some eyebrows by saying that I'm going to differ with you and Carson a little bit, because I actually think there are good reasons to think that 1 John 5:1 really can't be interpreted to argue for regeneration preceding faith.

But it's not on grammatical grounds. I'm going to get to all this in a minute. I'll just tease this right now. It's rather on semantic grounds. Semantic structure makes it pretty clear that what's happening there is faith preceding regeneration. So I'm a little bit stronger on that. I understand what Carson is saying. I don't disagree with what Carson is saying except to say that I think when you bring in the full orbed -- all of the exegetical material -- looking at it from a semantic perspective, contextually, you don't have a case for regeneration preceding faith, but you can have a case for faith preceding regeneration. So that would sort of be okay be how I might word that. 

I previously mentioned that I don't know what difference Allen intends between semantic and grammatical grounds, but at that time I did not have the benefit of having Sherman's work in front of me.  Incidentally, the book is published by "Summer Institute of Linguistics" in 1994 and lists as authors, "Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy." The publisher has bios on a number of their authors (link to bios) but neither Sherman nor Tuggy are on the list.  I was able to locate archives of publications attributed to Tuggy (link), which shows an active interest in linguistics; the archives similarly listed a shorter two other linguistic-related publications associated with Sherman's name (link). Not that credentials are the be-all or end-all, but I was not able to locate any information regarding whether these authors have any specific training.  I only mention this because Allen calls them "linguists," in citing them. 

In order to respond to Allen, it's necessary to consider Sherman's book, of which page 91 is the single cited page.  On the other hand, in view of James White's challenge, it would be good also to consider whether Sherman anticipated the challenge (by more than two decades!) and provided the answer to the problem of applying Allen's (borrowed) analysis(?) at 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.

Sherman has a note that is of particular interest at 1 John 2:29 and then nothing at all of interest at 1 John 4:7, except that her silence as to the parallel structure suggests she simply has not considered the issue.  From Sherman's analysis and conclusions for 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 we can more clearly demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency at 1 John 5:1.

First, pp. 55-56 address 1 John 2:29a:

Notice that in the "Relational Structure" section, Sherman does not break down 2:29b.  However, when analyzing 2:29a, Sherman says that "The Greek grammatical structure indicates a condition-CONSEQUENCE relation. However, we know that the protasis of the condition is true, so that this functions as a reason-RESULT, here encoded as 'since'."  

When it comes to analyzing 2:29b, Sherman says that the Greek "has been begotten" is figurative, and that this signifies spiritual regeneration.  Thus, Sherman translates/interprets the text as "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."

Second, pp. 79-81 address 1 John 4:7c:

As can be seen, Sherman does not further divide 1 John 4:7c, but treats the unit as a 'HEAD".  Sherman identifies the first appeal in this section (including 1 John 4:7) as "In a sense, this is the climax of the whole Epistle."  This is reasonable observation.  Note as well that once again Sherman explains "has been born from God" figuratively, in this case translating/interpreting it as "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" and to explain it thus:

The context shows that physical birth is not in view here; what is referred to is God's causing us to live eternally, that is, to associate properly with God, as a child with a father in a family.

Within the argument John is making, Sherman properly considers that 4:7c fits logically under "Love has its source in God," (i.e., 1 John 4:7b).  This, of course, is behind a right understanding of 1 John 2:29b as well: because God is the source of righteous acts, we know that the one who continues in doing what is righteous got that from God.

The challenge, of course, is to apply this same principle consistently when it comes to 1 John 5:1a-b (according to Sherman's division).  As noted above, p. 91 is the single page of Sherman's work that addresses 1 John 5:1a-b:

Note that on the page, Sherman has divided 1 John 5:1a as "condition" and 1 John 5:1b as "CNQ" (p. vi explains that this abbreviation means "consequent").  Allen asserted that "linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate" but, as you can see, there is mere assertion, not demonstration.  Incidentally, I have referred to the author as "Sherman" instead of "Sherman and Tuggy" because of the preface of the book, which indicates that the initial work was Sherman's and that Tuggy (to paraphrase) beefed up the justifications of the positions set forth by Sherman.  In cases where there is bare assertion, it seems better to credit Sherman.

Note, however, that the "NOTES" skip right past 1 John 5:1b, and the notes on 1 John 5:1 are focused on the title "Christ."  

Nevertheless, Sherman twice provides the translation/interpretation: "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  

I should add that the discussion of 1 John 5:1 resurfaces on the next pair of pages, pp. 92-93:

Notice here that the translation/interpretation offered pushed into a chiastic structure.  Sherman argues that "there is no doubt that the whole verse is an aphorism" and again "Verse 1 is a generalized statement in which the actors are unspecified or unidentified ...." (p. 93)

Recall from James White's challenge:

The Provisionist position is that 1 John 5:1 must be understood with the substantive participle in the present, "Everyone who believes (as a result) is born from God."  I believe the natural reading is "everyone believing has been born from God," with the perfect passive action preceding and conditioning the action of the participle. 

Based on the interpretation/translations offered by Sherman, it seems that notwithstanding the "condition/consequence" labelling, Sherman supports White more than Allen.  Specifically note:

• 1 John 2:29b "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."
• 1 John 4:7c "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" 
• 1 John 5:1b "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."

This (of course) agrees with White's analysis as to the relative time issue.

What then of the condition/consequence point?  Recall that Sherman had identified something as being condition/consequence based on Greek grammar, but based on knowledge that the protasis is true, Sherman recategorized as reason-result, at 1 John 2:29a.

So, what are some other examples of condition/consequence and reason/result offered by Sherman?  At p. 24 we see multiple examples:

What we can glean from these examples is that if we assume that Sherman has common sense, we see that she is not using "condition/consequence" to mean that the condition is the cause of the consequence.  Rather, Sherman is using "condition" and "consequence" to express the fact that the truth of the condition statement guarantees the truth of the consequence statement. 

I wish there were a better explanation, but it seems that Allen may have mistakenly assumed that Sherman's "condition/consequence" meant something like "cause/effect," when it plainly does not (see multiple instances on p. 24 that cannot reasonably be thought to be cause/effect).  As a result, it seems that Allen has quoted Sherman as supportive of his position, when Sherman does not address the specific conclusion of the relative timing of initial faith and being born of God and her proposed interpretation/translation most closely aligns with James White's.

Sherman does not say that the condition is faith or that this precedes the consequence, nor that the consequence is regeneration.  Instead, Sherman says that the condition is the statement (the portion following the if, of course) "If anyone believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One" and the consequence is the statement "he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  Notice that Sherman uses the the present tense for the condition statement and the perfect tense for the consequent statement.  The meaning of condition/consequence in this analysis is that if the condition is true, then the consequence is true.  In other words, if A is 5:1a is true, then 5:1b is true.  That's all that "condition" and "consequence" means here.  Moreover, given that Sherman has maintained the present/perfect distinction, the most natural read of the text is parallel to that of 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.

Finally, for the same reason that 1 John 2:29a is grammatically a condition-consequence statement, so also is 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.  And Sherman does not offer any reason or explanation (or even assertion) to handle these three parallel texts differently from one another.

Six Curious Cases of Improper(?) Pluralization in the King James Version

Two of the reasons I love the KJV are: it tends to be a literal translation and it makes it easy to distinguish between you (singular) and you (plural).  There are times when the King James seems to depart from the literal sense of the underlying Hebrew or Greek.  Sometimes that is for readability.  Other times, the reason is not clear.  In six instances in Deuteronomy, the KJV seems to errantly use a plural pronoun to represent a word that is grammatically singular in Hebrew.  The first instance is Deuteronomy 6:15.  

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

The corresponding Hebrew is this:

(Deuteronomy 6:15)  כִּי אֵל קַנָּא יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּקִרְבֶּךָ פֶּן־יֶחֱרֶה אַף־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּךְ וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה׃ ס

The key word is "בְּקִרְבֶּךָ" (Bekirbecha or Bəqirbek̲ā), which the King James translates as "among you".  The same Hebrew word, with the identical inflection, is found in a total of 19 verses in the Hebrew Scriptures (18 other places) using the Westminster Leningrad Codex text as the Hebrew text.   

Internal Consistency

As mentioned above, in six places in Deuteronomy, the word is translated with a plural ("among you") in the KJV, with the the remaining instances all being translated with a singular.

1. Exo 33:3 "in the midst of thee"
2. Exo 33:5 "into the midst of thee"
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" (apparent error)
4. Deu 7:21 "among you" (apparent error)
5. Deu 13:1 "among you" (apparent error)
6. Deu 16:11 "among you" (apparent error)
7. Deu 17:2 "among you" (apparent error)
8. Deu 23:16 "among you" (apparent error)
9. Deu 28:43 "within thee"
10. Jos 7:13 "in the midst of thee"
11. Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee"
12. Jer 4:14 "within thee"
13. Hos 11:9 "in the midst of thee"
14. Amo 5:17 "through thee"
15. Mic 6:14 "in the midst of thee"
16. Nah 3:13 "in the midst of thee"
17. Zep 3:12 "in the midst of thee"
18. Zep 3:15 "in the midst of thee"
19. Zep 3:17 "in the midst of thee"

Historical Basis

What is the source of this apparent error? One option is that this is the propagation of an error from the Tyndale translation, or from one of the other pre-KJV revisions of that Tyndale translation.  In this case, all the apparent errors arise in a book that Tyndale translated.

Tyndale

Tyndale translated the Pentateuch and Jonah.  He consistently translated this word as a plural:

1. Exo 33:3 "among you"  (different from KJV)
2. Exo 33:5 "apon you" (i.e., upon you) (different from KJV)
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" (same as KJV)
4. Deu 7:21 "amog you" (same as KJV)
5. Deu 13:1 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
6. Deu 16:11 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
7. Deu 17:2 "amonge you" (same as KJV) 
8. Deu 23:16 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
9. Deu 28:43 "amonge you"  (different from KJV)

As you can see, the KJV departs from the pluralization of the Tyndale text in three places, but maintains the pluralization in the other six places.  

Bishops

The Bishops' Bible had the whole OT, of course.  It had:

1. Exo 33:3 "amongest you" (different from KJV, essentially Tyndale)
2. Exo 33:5 "vpon you" (different from KJV, essentially Tyndale)
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" (same as KJV)
4. Deu 7:21 "among you" (same as KJV)
5. Deu 13:1 "among you" (same as KJV)
6. Deu 16:11 "among you" (same as KJV)
7. Deu 17:2 "among you" (same as KJV)
8. Deu 23:16 "among you" (same as KJV)
9. Deu 28:43 "among you" (different from KJV, same as Tyndale)
10. Jos 7:13 "among you" (different from KJV)
11. Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee" (same as KJV)
12. Jer 4:14 "with thee" (revised to "Within" in KJV)
13. Hos 11:9 "in the middest of thee" (Same as KJV)
14. Amo 5:17 "through thee" (same as KJV)
15. Mic 6:14 "in the middes of thee" (same as KJV)
16. Nah 3:13 "in the middest of thee" (same as KJV)
17. Zep 3:12 "in thee" (expanded to "in the midst of thee" in KJV)
18. Zep 3:15 "with thee" (revised to "in the midst of thee" in KJV)
19. Zep 3:17 "in the mids of thee" (same as KJV)

King James Revision Committee

In each of these places, we have notes in the form of an annotated 1602 Bishops' Bible:

Exo 33:3

(F2v)

Exo 33:5

(F2v)

Deu 6:15

(M1r)

Deu 7:21

(M1v)

Deu 13:1

(M4r)

Deu 16:11

(M5r)

Deu 17:2

(M5r)

Deu 23:16

(N1v)

Deu 28:43

(N3r)

Jos 7:13

(O2r)

Isa 12:6

(QQ5r)

Jer 4:14

(Tt4v)

Hos 11:9

(Ddd5v)

Amo 5:17

(Eee2v)

Mic 6:14

(Eee6r)

Nah 3:13

(Fff1r)

Zep 3:12

(Fff3r)

Zep 3:15

(Fff3r)

Zep 3:17

(Fff3r)

Subsequent Versions Maintaining Singular/Plural Pronoun Distinction

Nearly all contemporary translations do not make a distinction between second person singular (thee) and second person plural (you), making it hard to say whether contemporary translations agree or disagree with the King James on this point.  However, there are a number of translations subsequent to the King James that maintained the "thee/you" distinction, and that consequently can be used to test this:  

Citation	KJV (post-Blaney)	Websters 1833	YLT 1862	Darby 1890	ASV 1901
Exodus 33:3	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Exodus 33:5	into the midst of thee	into the midst of thee	into thy midst	into the midst of thee	into the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 6:15	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 7:21	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 13:1	among you	among you	in your midst	among you	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 16:11	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 17:2	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 23:16	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 28:43	within thee	within thee	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Joshua 7:13	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Isaiah 12:6	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Jeremiah 4:14	within thee	within thee	in thy heart... of thy strength	within thee	within thee
Hosea 11:9	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	In thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Amos 5:17	through thee	through thee	into thy midst	through the midst of thee	through the midst of thee
Micah 6:14	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Nahum 3:13	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Zephaniah 3:12	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Zephaniah 3:15	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Zephaniah 3:17	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee

As you can see, Webster's did not touch the translation of this word in any of the instances.  Young's literal corrected all of the plural cases to singular, except for Deuteronomy 13:1.  Darby did the same as Young's, though not copying Young's. The ASV also corrected Deuteronomy 13:1.  

Conclusion

It seems that the ASV is simply an improvement to the KJV in these six places in Deuteronomy, by providing a more literal rendering of the underlying Hebrew word, which is singular.  Can Tyndale's original translation work be defended on a formal equivalence grounds? Of course. 

In other words, we don't deny that the overall sense of the text is conveyed by the King James Version, even though the translation is not strictly literal here.  It seems unlikely that the sense will be misunderstood by the reader who knows that "thee/thou/thy/thine" are singular and "ye/you/your/yours" are plural.  So, I am not suggesting that this minor translational defect has created any problems.

On the other hand, the King James revision committee revised four other places in the Bishops' Bible where a plural was used for a singular when translating this word, and it would have been more consistent for them to have revised in these places as well.  We have no indication at all from the revisers as to why they did not revise in these places. They may simply not have noticed the issue.  

Oddly enough, King James defenders will defend the plural on the strangest of grounds.

Will Kinney (by way of example of a KJ defender) argued: 

This is not an error. It is a common thing for God to address the plural "you" along with the singular "thee" or "thou" directed towards each individual within the "you" group of all the Israelites.

As Dr. Peter Van Kleeck explains - “It is singular—“you” is Israel as a unified whole.

...

It is very common for God to go back and forth between the “you” plural and the “thee” or “thou” singular even in the same verse.

If Dr. van Kleeck (Kinney does not specify whether he means Sr. or Jr.) said that, he's speaking loosely at best.  The word, "you," in Tyndale's English is not grammatically singular.  Moreover, taking Deuteronomy 6:15 as an example, in the same verse "thee" is used of Israel as a unified whole:

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

So, while I agree that the "you" in Deuteronomy 6:15 refers to Israel as a unified whole, it does so using a plural pronoun (as well as using a preposition, "among," which requires a plural object).

God did not give Moses the King James, he gave Moses the Hebrew.  In the Hebrew, in this verse, God does not "go back and forth" as Kinney describes it: God consistently uses the singular.   

I have suggested before and will increasingly suggest that we need to improve the King James Version.  This is not a major error, or one that seems likely to me to be of any doctrinal significance.  Nevertheless, it is a less literal translation of the Hebrew text.  

Comparison to Ancient Versions

Ancient versions are not binding.  Nevertheless, we are confident that the King James translators were aware of the Septuagint and Vulgate versions and that they at least considered them in some way in their translation process.  It is trickier to confirm their handling of the word, because we are not always sure whether they had precisely verbatim the same underlying Hebrew text and because we are not sure that they are always woodenly literal in their translation style.  The Vulgate and Septuagint texts handle this word thus:

1. Exo 33:3 "in the midst of thee" | tecum | μετὰ σοῦ
2. Exo 33:5 "into the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
4. Deu 7:21 "among you" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
5. Deu 13:1 "among you" | in medio tui | [13:2] ἐν σοὶ 
6. Deu 16:11 "among you" | vobiscum | ἐν ὑμῖν
7. Deu 17:2 "among you" | *phrase omitted* | *phrase omitted*
8. Deu 23:16 "among you" | tecum | [23:17] μετὰ σοῦ 
9. Deu 28:43 "within thee" | tecum | ἐν σοί
10. Jos 7:13 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν ὑμῖν
11. Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς
12. Jer 4:14 "within thee" | in te | ἐν σοὶ
13. Hos 11:9 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ 
14. Amo 5:17 "through thee" | in medio tui | διὰ μέσου σου
15. Mic 6:14 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ 
16. Nah 3:13 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
17. Zep 3:12 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ 
18. Zep 3:15 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν μέσῳ σου 
19. Zep 3:17 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί

As you can see, in the vast majority of the cases, both the Vulgate and the Septuagint translate using a singular.  For example, among all the verse, the only time that the Vulgate uses a plural is Deuteronomy 16:11.  The Septuagint also uses a plural in Deuteronomy 16:11 as well as using a plural in Exodus 33:5 and Joshua 7:13.  Interestingly, the Septuagint seems to change to third person in Isaiah 12:6.  In Deuteronomy 17:2, there seems to be either a shorter base text or a translation that combines two phrases in Hebrew into one.

One word of caution about the Vulgate and Septuagint in the list of above.  I have completed this section in a hurry - please verify before re-posting.

Based on this analysis, only one of the six places defensible on the basis of ancient translations would be Deuteronomy 16:11.  However, if one defends on that basis, the other five places still need improvement.

N.B. Thanks to Mike Tisdell for bringing one of these verses to my attention, leading to the article.

Update: 

Christopher Yetzer offered the following reply:

I wouldn't call those an error for several reasons. 1. thee/thou/thine were already archaic, so to follow current standards wouldn't necessarily be an error. 2. "you" can refer collectively as a unit. 3. They never made the claim to follow this supposed principle throughout the Bible (similar to italics). 4. Possibly different translators working on different sections caused some inconsistencies, but not errors. Inconsistencies are not errors in and of themselves (consider amongst/among or Easter). If both renderings are possible, than neither is an error. 5. Several of the ones in Deuteronomy are in close proximity to "the Lord thy God." Possibly they felt that this was a good combination for English in those places. 6. Previous Bible translations had "among you" in more places than the KJV. For instance your first one on the list Exodus 33:3, Tyndale, Great, Matthews and the Bishops all had "among you".

Keep in mind that Yetzer qualifies his entire set of arguments by saying that he would not call those six places an "error."  Whether they are a called an error or not is less interesting to me than whether there is room for improvement in the King James version when it comes to providing a highly literal translation of the underlying Hebrew text.  

As to Yetzer's first argument, the premise that using the second person singular and second person plural distinctly was "already archaic" may have a little merit, despite Shakespeare famously distinctly using "thee" and "you" in literature contemporary to the King James revision and in literature intended for popular consumption.  In support of Yetzer's idea, a 1660 Quaker book reports people being beat for using "thou" to address other people (link to source).  This premise, even if sound in itself, nevertheless would not support Yetzer's conclusion.  After all, the King James revisers did not generally revise the text away from using "thee" distinctly from "you." Furthermore, this wording is not traceable to the King James revisers, but instead is traceable to Tyndale, and the use of "thee" was not already archaic in the time of Tyndale. Tyndale's text, before and after the King James revisers handled it, contained a mixture of use of "thee" and "you."

As to Yetzer's second argument, once again, the premise that "you" can refer to a collective unit is not especially controversial.  However, the referent of the Hebrew word translated by "you" in (for example) Deuteronomy 6:15 is the same as the referent of the Hebrew words translated by "thee" in the same verse.  The switch between singular and plural pronouns is - at best - an unnecessary and confusing choice.  In particular, there is an available English way to translate the Hebrew word, namely, "in the midst of thee," without introducing a plural pronoun to refer to the collective unit.  Switching the number from singular to plural does not serve any apparent reason, given that it is not necessary to the task of translation.

As to Yetzer's third argument, once again, we can generally agree with the stated premise (although it's not perfectly clear which "principle" Yetzer is targeting).  Whether the King James revisers claimed to follow the principle of literal translation throughout the Bible or not, this is a less literal translation than another available translation, namely, "in the midst of thee" or "in thy midst." Additionally, whether the King James revisers claimed to follow the principle of using "thee" for the singular and "you" for the plural, that was the convention in the time of Tyndale, and it is the most obvious explanation of the King James revisers' correction of the Bishops' Bible in at least four places just relating to this word. Indeed, inconsistently following the principle of using "you" only for plural undermines the primary benefit of having the thee/you distinction present in the text. 

As to Yetzer's fourth argument, the first Westminster company is thought to have had the primary charge of revising the section of the Old Testament from Genesis to 2 Kings (See also, Alistair McGrath's "In the Beginning").  All six of the oversights and all four of the valid corrections come from this section.  So, it is less likely that this came from a difference of translational methodology or style.  Inconsistency is excellent evidence of error, even if there are cases where inconsistency is due to something other than error.  In this instance, however, difference of translation committee does not adequately explain the discrepancy.

Nested in Yetzer's fourth argument is the suggestion that if both ways of translating are valid translations, than neither can be an error.  In principle, we could grant, some Hebrew word could be translated by two English words that are precise synonyms of one another (perhaps "amongst" and "among" are an example of this), and consequently equally good word choices.  On the other hand, "thee" and "you" are not precise synonyms in the English in which the King James is written.  In this instance, the use of "in the midst of thee" is clearly superior to "among you" in terms of exposing the fact that the underlying Hebrew is continuing to use the singular.  This may be only a small advantage, but it is an advantage.  Moreover, this small advantage also seems to be the justification for four changes to the Bishops' Bible with respect to this specific Hebrew word.  

As to Yetzer's fifth argument, the argument seems to premised on speculation that appears unconnected to the wording choice selected.  Yetzer wrote: "Several of the ones in Deuteronomy are in close proximity to "the Lord thy God." Possibly they felt that this was a good combination for English in those places." First, it's unclear what measure of "good" Yetzer has in mind.  Respectful?  Something else? Of the 19 places where bekirbecha appears, "Lord thy God" (as a phrase) appears in the KJV only in Deuteronomy 6:15, 7:21, 16:11, 17:2, and Zephaniah 3:17.  Furthermore, it is only directly proximate in Deuteronomy 7:21 and Zephaniah 3:17.  So, even if we were to assume that it was somehow better as being more reverential or the like (which I don't agree with for even one second), this standard is not followed with consistency.

As to Yetzer's sixth argument, his premise is part of the argument presented above.  The King James revisers properly corrected the Bishops' Bible in four other places, but failed to do so here.  This is similar (but more severe) than their failure to fully correct the archaic usage of "Easter" found in a few places in the Bishops' Bible where the meaning was "Passover." 

*** Further Update

Yetzer provided a still further reply, which I will quote in chunks and respond to piece by piece.

I think you define "error" differently than most. I forget if you describe "Easter" as an error or not? Would you say that you are consistent and if modern Bibles translate using slightly different language, you would still call it an error, or is it only the KJV?

If you read the original post, you will notice that I use phrases like "apparent error".  Rather than focusing on whether it is an error or merely an apparent error, I focus on whether it is a translation that can be improved upon.  The answer to my question, of course, is "yes, there is room for improvement."

It's obviously not an error in translation by the King James first Westminster company, for the simple reason that it was not their translation: it was Tyndale's translation in form adopted by the Bishops' Bible and untouched.  Nevertheless, it is reasonable classified as an editorial oversight like the editorial oversight at Acts 12:4 where the King James revisers failed to update "Easter" (which meant "Passover" when Tyndale originally translated Acts - see discussion here, for example), despite updating the English of John 11:55 and 1 Esdras 1:12 (among other places).  The editorial oversight is more significant in this instance than in that instance because (1) there is evidence of continued usage of "Easter" as meaning "Passover" after 1611, (2) there is only one such oversight when it comes to Pascha but there are six oversights when it comes to bekirbecha, and (3) "you" expressed (in English) the wrong number of the word (i.e., plural rather than singular) , rather than being merely a potentially misleading rendering in 1611.

From my standpoint, the Tyndale translation itself is relatively modern.  So, I don't find "modern" a helpful way of distinguishing Bibles that are even more modern than the King James.  However, of course, Yetzer is free to use whatever designation he wants.  

Additionally, framing this in terms of "slightly different language" does not capture my concern.  The issue isn't that the translation does not capture full nuance of the underlying language, but that the translation is less literal than a reasonable alternative translation without any good justification for not being literal in this instance.

Finally, whether I'm consistent or not is more about me than about the issue.  However, I'm quite willing to criticize other revisions of Tyndale's translation than the King James.  For example, in my original article, I point out that of all the subsequent revisions of the Tyndale translation (i.e., Webster's, Young's, Darby's, and the ASV) that I reviewed in the post, only the ASV fully corrected this issue.  Moreover, on this particular issue, most of the translations that Yetzer considers "modern" fail me, because they simply make no effort to represent the difference between you singular and you plural.

Yetzer continued:

I agree that there are inconsistencies in the KJV. I am uninterested in changing anything. Most people who want to change things are not using it anyways. I believe any further changes is a waste of time and unproductive or helpful to those who want to have the KJV as an English standard. I have talked a lot about this, but deciding who would do it and gaining acceptance across a broad range of users is not going to be possible at this point. Even the changes which took places after the initial printing were minor and attempted to keep the text as close as possible to the 1611.

There are, of course, numerous successful later revisions of the Tyndale translation, including not only the New King James Version but also more significant revisions stemming from the Revised Version from the late 1800s.  While there are many departures, one still sees the influence of the Tyndale translation on translations like the ESV.

However, I think we can provide a better improvement to the KJV than that represented by the ESV.  Whether it will be commercial successful or not, I leave for other folks.

Yetzer continued:    

According to Nikolaos Lavidas’ 2021 book The Diachrony of Written Language Contact: A Contrastive Approach published by Brill, he states, “Tyndale’s texts, translations and polemical texts, contain examples of syntactic archaisms (Canon 2016), that is, borrowings and re-introductions of obsolete forms from an earlier period of the language—what one would characterize as evidence of a type of written contact with earlier forms of English. One such example is the use of the early/archaic second person singular and plural pronouns in Tyndale’s texts: the second person plural pronoun had begun to appear in all, singular and plural, contexts in Early Middle English. Tyndale used the verbal forms for second singular and plural number productively, as well as the distinction between the subject pronoun ye and the object pronoun you, following earlier texts. However, the first attestations of the nominative you, instead of ye, appeared in the 14th century and was productively used in the literary language by the 1540s.” [TF has conformed the quotation to p. 41 of the book] 

This quotation points out that Tyndale adopted the rules that were (according to Lavidas) beginning to go out of style.  In accordance with those rules, the six places noted above should be translated "in the midst of thee" or "in thy midst." If not for those rules, the four places that were corrected by the King James revisers should not have been corrected.   One cannot have it both ways.

Incidentally, as noted by Vaughn, Canon refers to Elizabeth Bell Canon, “Buried Treasure in the Tyndale Corpus: Innovations and Archaisms,” Anglica, an International Journal of English Studies, 2016, 25/2, pp. 151-165.

Yetzer continued again:

and “A careful study of the court records of the northern English city of Durham suggests that “you” had replaced “thou” as the normal form of address in spoken English by about 1575. The decision to use “thou” was a departure from the norm...” McGrath, Alister. “The Story of the King James Bible” in Translation That Openeth the Window. Society of Biblical Literature. 2009. p. 13

McGrath said the same thing in his 2008 book, "In the Beginning" referenced above.  The quotation continues in this way (pp. 267): "The decision to use "thou" was a departure from the norm, intended to make a point--for example, in the following exchange between a social inferior and his superior" [followed by an exchange in which the social inferior uses "ye" and "yours" whereas the social superior uses "thou" and "thy"].

I would respectfully push back on McGrath on this point, at least in that the King James revisers were revising an existing translation that already had the the thou/you distinction.  Perhaps they intentionally wanted the Bible to sound more upper class, but they inherited a Bible with the distinction present.

Furthermore, as with the material from Lavidas, if the translators did decide to maintain the distinction consciously to make a point, then they should have correctly followed that distinction in these six passages.  If they were not doing so, then they should not have altered the four other passages.  One cannot have it both ways.

Yetzer continued: 

3. The principle I intended was making a difference between the archaic thee/thou/thine and you/your/yours.

Lavidas and McGrath argue that this was indeed a principle adopted and the evidence seems to support their contention that it was an intentional use of the distinction to convey information from the underlying text into English.    

Yetzer continued:

4. There are some people who hypothesize that the committees were more divided than normally considered.

It's certainly possible that the first Westminster company did not go through the text collectively, but rather did so individually.  This would explain the inconsistent revision due to a lesser translator handling the six verses where correction should have been offered.  This explanation, however, comes at the expense of the usual line of argument that the King James revision should be given huge weight because of the large number of involved translators.

In other words, it may well be that in practice if one of the translators charged with revising a particular verse proposed a revision, the fellows in his company checked his work to see if the revision was good.  However, if no revision was proposed, there was nothing to check, and consequently no check was made, leading to editorial oversight problems like these six oversights.

While I find Yetzer's proposal intuitively pleasing, I note that would imply that the companies did not strictly follow the guidance provided by Archbishop Bancroft.  This would also mean that while we might place higher credence in translation work that is original to the 1611 King James revision of the Tyndale Bible, we should not place the same credence in passages like these six where there was no original work by the committee. 

Yetzer then concluded by referring to an article in which he argued that the 1602 Bishops' Bible that I have excerpted above was not from the KJV translators.  Timothy Berg, on the other hand, has an article that I found more persuasive on the point (see here).