Church and devotional reading plan

If you would like to read a lot of Bible every day, or have a set scheme of Sunday readings, then why not follow a plan?

In fact, why not follow the plan that was in front of the 1611 King James Bible, adjusted to the 1662 plan, as is presented in the vintage era Book of Common Prayer.

You can read the Bible through by following the calendar, have special Sunday readings, and even follow the movable calendar which will start and override from one of the Sundays after Epiphany. You can read special readings for the holy days as well.

As Protestants, you don’t have to regard any of the feasts and so forth, like the crypto-Catholics, Laudians, Restoration monarchists, Jacobites and so on did, and you can ignore the Apocrypha readings, but still it would sit well if Christians were reading the same thing and following a traditionally established plan.

It surely can’t hurt to read of the birth of Jesus on 25 December or remember the resurrection of Christ on a certain Sunday relative to the moon and equinox according to the Gregorian calendar. I know Pentecostal preachers advocate for a proper Christmas and a proper Easter, but not everyone is on board because of the fact they were once the pagan and the heathen festivals of Saturnalia and Eostremonath. (We have no problem with Thursdays or March and look who they are named after.) I do think we should be very cautious about what has happened to All Saints’ Eve (Halloween).

If you are afraid of embracing error because of the spiritual dryness of liturgical Christianity, perhaps you should think more like the spiritual power of born again Christianity can find merit and use in taking back our heritage and reformation values. I don’t think for one minute someone is going to slide into error because of reading the Bible according to some long established plan. The Bible and the Holy Ghost lead to truth, after all.

Ideal copies of the late Victorian form of the Book of Common Prayer, which was printed all the way to the time of the late Queen Elizabeth II, are available. (That is, not the failed 1928 or other modern forms). This is one online: And here is another:

People should not be surprised that a Word and Spirit Christian would embrace truths from Pentecostalism, 17th century Puritanism and the historical Book of Common Prayer.

Ruckman and Riggs


There are two examples that enemies of the King James Bible’s perfection like to bring up. The first is Ruth 3:15 and the second is Jeremiah 34:16.

In Ruth 3:15, the First 1611 Edition read at the last part of the verse, “and he went into the citie.” Compare that to today, where it says, “and she went into the city.”

The change from “he” to “she” happened in the Second 1611 Edition. Sometimes it has been printed “he” over the years, but most editions have “she”, and that is by far the common wording seen today.

The other example is Jeremiah 34:16, where today’s Cambridge Editions read, “But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.” But Oxford Editions have, “whom he”.

Enemies mention these two examples because they ask, “which one of these two words are inspired? Is it ‘he’ or ‘she’? Is it ‘he’ or ‘ye’?” Etc.


Peter S. Ruckman was a well known King James Bible only teacher in the second half of the twentieth century. He even wrote several articles on these issues.

“Our problem text today is from Ruth Chapter 3. This is one of the ‘last resorts’ used by the Cult to prove a ‘contradiction’ in the AV. The thinking behind this is that some editions of the AV had ‘SHE went into the city’ while others said ‘HE went into the city’ … Now the fact is, they BOTH ‘went into the city.’ Observe Ruth 3:16 — Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, is IN THE CITY. Observe Ruth 4:1 — Boaz had to go into the city to get to ‘the gate.’ Either reading would have been the truth of God without contradiction.”

“’She went into the city’ has been corrected from ‘He went into the city’ (Ruth 3:15), which constituted no error for both of them went into the city, which is perfectly apparent to anyone who can read two-syllable words.”

Ruckman approaches the King James Bible as if it literally is the truth of God, and if he finds it saying “he”, then he says that that is true, and if he finds it saying “she”, he will say it is true, and now he finds that some editions have “he” and others “she”, he is forced to say that both are concurrently correct, that both must be right.

He does the same when holding an Oxford and a Cambridge on his desk. I wrote to Peter Ruckman years ago about this issue, his secretary wrote back saying that either are correct, though that he preferred the Cambridge.

“Well, BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (‘ye’ in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (‘he’ in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13).”

Ruckman did not seem to insist on the idea that there was one true set of words, or that one reading should be preferred over another. In fact, he went as far as D. A. Waite did, and talked about the Hebrew.


God’s word is truth. When it comes to Ruth 3:15, this was clearly a typographical error, because it was corrected straight away the same year.

Now I know that Scrivener thought that “she” is the typographical error, but even his fellow scholars disagreed with him on that point.

The reality is that we are to regard the very words of God.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4.

God does not speak in contradictions, and he does not have alternative readings to what He said.

But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 2 Corinthians 1:18

God’s true word in Heaven is an absolute set of words, there is no shadow of turning with them. Purity demands the right words, not two differing and opposing words!

Thus, it is madness to think that “he” and “she” could both be correct, when it has to be one or the other.

Again, truth compels us not to serve two masters, but we must choose between Cambridge and Oxford.

Importantly, since the Cambridge can be shown right at all such places of difference between it and the Oxford, it must be right here also.

One simply does not have to go to the Hebrew to explain or find any truth.

Continue reading

Refuting Bryan Ross again


Bryan Ross, an American Baptist pastor, used to believe that Matthew 5:18 was referring to the jots and tittles of Scripture.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18).

Even Textus Receptus Onlyist D. A. Waite understood that this verse was speaking about the written Scripture, though he applied it to the original languages only, at least saw that it applied to the New Testament as much as it did the Old.

But Bryan Ross has come to question this interpretation altogether, seemingly denying God’s care for the very parts of letters of His Scripture, and now taking a position, in alignment with modernists, that this verse is only talking about promises in the Old Testament about Jesus, and not about the words and letters that contain those promises. In other words, Pastor Ross has completely disconnected the meaning of the passage from the implication that God’s words, God’s law itself, is made up of words and letters.

People win court cases over a comma in the constitution or a law! When we are told that God’s law is perfect, surely the very form of it, the very writing must needs be perfect in and of itself!

How did Bryan Ross come to question the obvious, natural interpretation of this passage? Well, he began by being bamboozled by walking by sight. Specifically, he read in a book by David Norton that there had been changes made by editors in the King James Bible. (How that was a shock to any Norman Normal out there, I don’t know.)

Now this is rather strange, since F. H. A. Scrivener had written about this in 1873 and 1884. And that D. A. Waite had made copies available of Scrivener’s book. I’d written about the subject since 2007 online too. So how is it that Bryan Ross turned to Norton’s book, and instead of thinking like I did, or like D. A. Waite did, he started to approach the thinking of Norton and began to think like the modernists?

And so, seeing editorial changes (more than just Norton’s data), he accepted elements of Norton’s perspective.

Bryan Ross has written, “My decision to use David Norton’s book A Textual History of the King James Bible to frame this discussion came under scrutiny this past week on social media. It has been asserted that Professor Norton is unsaved and therefore is not to be trusted in his reporting of textual data/facts. This assertion is coupled with the premise that Norton edited his own edition of the KJB from Cambridge University Press called the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (NCPB). I have never supported or advocated for the NCPB. Just because Norton makes editorial decisions in his NCPB that I would not approve of does not mean that his presentation of the textual facts as it relates to the printed history of the KJB text are in error. One needs to distinguish between Norton’s cataloging of textual variants in the printed history of the King James text and his editorial work on the NCPB.”

I personally questioned why Bryan Ross was relying heavily upon Norton, but it certainly was not me who said that Norton could not be trusted in his reporting of data/facts. I in fact, do trust what he records about the 1611 to the present time. What I strongly disagree with is his interpretation of that data, his turning to an 1602 manuscript as being an alleged draft and his going to the original languages in how he then makes judgments on editing. (Besides his modernisation of the KJB and weird changes in places.)

Further, I said that it appeared that Norton was not an evangelical.

But if Bryan Ross is representing what I said, then he is grossly misrepresenting me, as badly as he has accused others of misrepresenting others.

Let me say that I am very much against the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, and it is pleasing to see that Ross says he is also not advocating for it.

Bizarrely it appears as if he is attempting to lecture me on distinguishing between Norton’s catalogues and Norton’s editorial work, when that is exactly my position — has Bryan Ross read my materials?!

Norton’s method is to compare editorial variations in the printed history of the KJB with an annotated 1602 manuscript from the Bodleian Library (which may have been annotated after 1611) and reference to the original languages.

What Bryan Ross is fighting against is the simplistic idea that spelling changes and typographical errors are the only thing that ever happened in the printed history of the KJB. I understand that. But instead of taking a balanced or reasoned view (e.g. consulting multiple sources like Scrivener, Norris, me etc.) Ross has limited himself to only Norton. Now, I don’t actually advocate for the so-called “balanced” view, but that’s how modern academia works, which is that you should look at multiple perspectives when studying a discipline, not railroad yourself to the scholarship of one man.

Free self promotion here, but my material is freely available and Ross could use that to augment or “counterbalance” a sole reliance on Norton… of course, he could primarily follow in my path, which is at least is not discounting D. A. Waite and Gail Riplinger … and I am not 100% with either of those two people’s positions, but I think we should be fair and friendly and take up when teachers have said the right things or helped further the good cause of God’s words. To be very honest, I could not have written my monograph Glistering Truths without having read materials from both Waite and Riplinger.

So it almost looks like Byran Ross is disconnecting with all of one side, but connecting with Norton and liaising with anti-King James Bible agitator Mark Ward (without being in full agreement with either of those two.)

Though the warning is:

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3).

Continue reading

Bryan Ross’ rejection of jot and tittle perfection


Today, like a solar storm, a new contention has come to pass, which is something called the denial of the ultimate very jots and tittles of Scripture being manifest and known in the Earth.

Pastor Bryan Ross is an American teacher who has been investigating claims of various King James Bible only people. Like me, he has sought to distance himself from crazy claims and better articulate some claims that are made by King James Bible onlyists. For example, I think there is no such thing as an “Antioch stream” of Bibles.

I recently had a discussion with Bryan Ross, and he indicates he is not retreating to a mere Textus Receptus onlyist position. But on the other hand, when discussing the issues of variations in words like “stablish” versus “establish”, Ross appealed to the original languages and argued that these words were essentially the same.

In part, this is because Ross has seen in American KJB editions variations of spelling on words, and in order to justify this, he attempts to argue that since the Americans were varying around words (he claims just spellings) that something like “stablish” and “establish” must be synonymous. (After all variations of this sort are to be found even in 1611, in regard to “thoroughly” and “throughly”.)

These are different words with different meanings. As I’ve shown clearly in my book Glistering Truths (get it here), words like “alway” versus “always” or “farther” versus “further” are different, and so too are “stablish” and “establish”. It’s no use relying solely on 1611 when orthography and spelling was not yet standard, but we see huge progress in this through the early Cambridge editorial revisions and in Blayney’s Oxford work, to our final Pure Cambridge Edition of today.

Bryan Ross argues that because in Greek or Hebrew the same word might be translated to similar words, that those English words are really the same. Hence his ultimate appeal is to the original languages and not English of the KJB. This makes him look very much like a TRO, though he has stated that he thinks that the KJB is right.

I have taken the approach of relying on English alone, especially in relation to looking at the internal nature of the editing and grammar of the King James Bible.

Dean Burgon said, “If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.” (Revision Revised, page 190). Now obviously this is talking about translation, but the principle applies directly into editorial distinctiveness, which does convey the translation (that is, the meaning).

There are subtleties of nuance, in a way, worlds of meaning between these different words in English. Those differences, just like the “stablish” and “establish” differences, are vital for conveying the very sense of the Scripture. It is said that Martin Luther taught that we must tremble before every syllable of Scripture, that no iota is in vain. And as the Westminster Confession lays out, Scripture is truly in our own language of English. Therefore, this right kind of zeal towards the very words and letters in English.

That’s why we should stay with the proper editing of the King James Bible and uphold the very accuracy of the letters as to be found in the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Continue reading

Confusion about W. Aldis Wright’s 1611 reprint

There’s a website called “Original Bibles”, which I won’t link here, but which is purporting to have the “Pure Cambridge Edition”. Except it isn’t. What they have on their website is the 1611 Reprint as edited by W. Aldis Wright, which was made in 1909. It’s a good resource text to know what was printed in 1611, but it clearly is NOT the Pure Cambridge Edition.

I’ve contacted them, or tried to find out what their reasoning is, to no satisfaction. They obviously have their aim of listing various pdfs of old Bible printings. That’s reasonable enough, but it’s evident that they are using the words “Pure Cambridge Edition” inaccurately.

They admit that their 1611 Reprint does not match the PCE, since the PCE has spirit not Spirit in 1 John 5:8, saying that this test “is not met. We are looking into this matter and should post further updates in due course.”

To find out about the real Pure Cambridge Edition, just read this website. Have a look at the blog articles below.

Especially useful is this book which shows the actual dates of the PCE and also that their 1909 is a 1611 Reprint:

Parris, Paris, Therond and Blayney

For the first time ever, we are able to uncover some new information on the editors of the King James Bible in the middle of the eighteenth century.

In 1703, Francis Sawyer Parris was born in Bythorn, Huntingdonshire. He was educated at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, from 1720, and continued studying, becoming Master of Sidney Sussex in 1746, he also served as University Librarian.

Joseph Bentham undertook to print Bibles at Cambridge, beginning at 1743. Apparently, Parris was invited to check and proofread the text. Parris therefore began to make small changes in the Bibles, such as with some punctuation, his work culminating in the 1760 edition, the year of his death.

A more substantive role was undertaken by another man, Thomas Paris. He was born in 1724 in the town of Cambridge, and enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1741, and went on to graduate, eventually serving as a priest at Ely.

By all accounts, Thomas Paris worked as an editor at Cambridge, leading to the substantive quarto edition of 1762, as printed by Joseph Bentham. Paris died in 1800. In 1763 Baskerville printed his own Bible, famous for its beautiful typography.

Through the decades all historians acknowledged Thomas Paris’ role until Michael Black in 1984, David McKitterick in 1984, and afterwards David Norton, who essentially attempted to delete Thomas Paris from history, acknowledging only F. S. Parris, who had done some work at Cambridge University Press up to 1760.

The work on the 1762 edition was also undertaken by Henry Therond, 1735-1782. Therond had done his junior education in London before he enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1753. He graduated, became a Fellow in 1758 and eventually Junior Proctor in 1776.

In 1769, Dr Benjamin Blayney of Oxford used the 1762 Edition as a foundation for his own editorial work, which led to the 1769 Edition. It is ultimately Dr Blayney who gets the credit for the work even though the preparation was undertaken by others for his famous edition.

Since 1769, Blayney’s work has undergone some fairly minor revisions, in relation to spellings, etc., the culmination of which is the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Seven major editions of the King James Bible








A book on the Pure Cambridge Edition by Matthew Verschuur