Editorial, General, Review

Ward wronger about English

INTRODUCTION

Mark Ward is working on a book which he thinks is about understanding the Bible better, and on that side, his desire is good, but because he has accepted false premises of small “m” modernism, his execution is tainted.

LANGUAGES

Ward follows the “Reformed” position of the Puritans that God’s words as written in Hebrew, Chaldean-Syriack and Greek are more superior than translation. The idea that God used Hebrew and Greek without error is true, but to imply that truth is locked there because translation is a human work is incorrect.

Translation is a human work in a normal sense, but we have the promises of God which override the natural things of this world.

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

Notice that God promises that the nations are to know the Scripture and to be able to obey (comprehend and do exactly) it.

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20).

Again, the gentiles clearly can know what Jesus said, even in the end of time, because it is being communicated to them.

From these and other passages we can infer easily that God can and is using the Scripture in English, and even further, we can find that the correct form of the Scripture for the world is in the global language of English.

Just as people after the time of the Apostle John have correctly understood and articulated doctrines from Scripture like the Trinity through church council creeds, and just how the correct canon of Scripture has been settled, so likewise a correct translation of the Scripture has been made in English as a standard for the world.

Remember, languages are under the hand of God, he scattered the people by confusing their languages, and God is in control over tongues, so that they may serve the Lord Christ in His historical reign until He come in person.

God is superintending over language, specifically English.

GOD’S USE OF LANGUAGE

Mark Ward has sadly taken on a naturalistic view of the transmission of Scripture, of translation and of language. It is the view that permeates evangelical Christianity, which has accepted Deistic principles of small “m” modernism.

While modernists like Ward accept that God is in general control and that He has caused in a messy way to have the Scripture come to us, they do not see God’s more pervasive superintendence through the natural processes, but instead act as if God’s will is just natural processes and ironically they put more emphasis on human learning to have to struggle and strive to translate and get the Scripture to us today.

It is a very weird fatalism that says, “Whatever is happening is God’s will, but God is not actually getting anything perfect through human agency”. Yet the Scripture shows us a very different view, which appears to be a prophecy against modernism:

“GIVE ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?
7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.”
(Deuteronomy 32:1-7).

God’s work is perfect, therefore God is able to get His word to us properly. Why should we believe that the inspired autographs are perfect, but the providentially supplied English translation made common in English-speaking evangelicalism throughout the globe has not been highly exalted by God?

THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS GOD’S ENGLISH

Mark Ward starts from the very naturalistic, even mocking position, that the King James Bible is merely bound to Elizabethan and Jacobean English. Because it was made in those times, it is bound to them. But is it? Because the King James Bible is speaking to today.

Ward also uses a propagandistic technique of saying that the seeming weight and sacredness of the language of the King James Bible is parallel to Tridentine Catholics making out as if Latin is more holy than common languages. However, there is a major fault here: Latin was ostensibly a dead language in the 16th century, whereas English is a world dominating language today. And again, the language of the King James Bible itself is more “Bible-ish”, recognisable and currently comprehensible due to internet tools and education than ever.

This is because the KJB is God’s use of English, and it speaks clearly to people today.

Mark Ward mocks the KJB by trying to say there are incomprehensible or difficult words. But that is due to the nature of Scripture, not due to the nature of language usage. Scripture has advanced concepts.

Ward has also inconsistently attacked KJB words like “study” or “halt” by trying to read in modernistic definitions. These are similar to attacks on the KJB’s translation of words like “firmament”, “unicorn”, “bishop”, “power”, “bowels”, etc., etc. These attacks are made from adherence to Jewish fables, from ignorance, from theological partisanship, from error, from pride, etc.

The truth is that the Spirit of God is giving comprehension of the exactness of words and their meanings from the KJB, and having a stubborn-hearted, ignorant or addle-minded approach towards God’s setting up and use of the KJB is a disservice to the manifest providence of truth which God uses to speak as a paper prophet to today. That is why there is a warning in Scripture that those who do not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

NATURAL PRINCIPLES ARE SUBSERVIENT

It is obvious that the Scripture is God’s use of language, and that He uses words to mean what He means.

But Mark Ward wants to be like Humpty-dumpty and limit or dictate whether words mean what they mean, or do another tricky thing, and impose a category about what words meant (used to mean) and what they apparently mean now.

Except, if anyone looked at the human record of English word usage (the Oxford English Dictionary), they will find meanings still exist, and that words are only lost if they are not used any more, and if words no longer have the meaning they used to have (like the nefarious agenda of the Newspeak Dictionary).

It is therefore a propaganda technique to imply that words have lost meaning, and that means are irrecoverable. The opposite is true: the KJB word meanings are not lost, and through both the direct work of the Spirit and human agency like internet technology, word meanings are kept in knowledge.

The Holy Ghost really is leading and guiding into all truth.

ALL THE BLATHER ABOUT THE GREEK

I’ve been criticising the idea that preachers and teachers take Greek words in their sermons and say what those words mean. Such a practice is a complete waste of time and contrary to Scripture. It is not a method Paul or Peter used, it is not in any way materially helpful, especially since we have good translations.

Having every jumped up basket weaver telling us what the Greek words are and what they “really” mean, in contradiction to the use and definition in the KJB, is in fact warring against the KJB’s translation. Are these unlearned men really right even though they might try to make themselves look smart by mentioning Greek words.

How do Greek words really help? And yet Mark Ward is writing in his book that they are Hebrew and Greek words that Christians should know. Well, that’s confusion and nonsense. There are Greek words that are now English words. There are Greek words which the KJB translators had to know in order to translate into English. There are Greek words which good men had to know to confirm that the KJB’s translation was correct. But that’s happened for 400 years, and that time is over now. Now we can rely on the KJB’s translation itself. There’s nothing in English that’s more or less than the originals, but we have it all perfectly fine, indeed, exactly right.

Let’s find God’s words in the KJB and stick with them.

In a moment of rare clarity, Mark Ward himself also has seen that having people spout Greek is not always a good thing. After all, the Greek academic mafia and the power of the Greek diviners is about maintaining their system, that Greek is controlled by them, and means what they particularly want it to mean.

So if people are just spouting Greek for the sake of it or using poor tools or not bringing actual clarity of understanding, Mark Ward knows that he has to “lovingly correct” his own side.

Ward has the temerity to accuse loving the KJB to be akin to Roman Catholic venerations but the irony is that there is a funded body of the Greek curia which wants to control Bible interpretation and doctrinal concepts. The problem isn’t the authority of adhering to an interpretation, the problem is the usurping authority of the modernistic methodology and the adhering to wrong doctrinal outcomes.

Editorial, General, Review

Ward gone wrong

INTERPRETATION MATTERS

Christianity is in a war of Bible interpretation. Arminians and Calvinists can use the KJB and come to different views. Futurists, Historicists and Preterists can use the KJB and come to different views. There’s battles over all kinds of things. Yet these people can all use the KJB.

The KJB isn’t the problem. It isn’t a problem of what Bible version, the problem is actually interpretation. Now, a modern Bible version can be a small part of the issue, and it cannot be minimised that the people who want to doubt the end of Mark or the woman caught in adultery or 1 John 5:7 are putting themselves into a weaker position. But that’s not the biggest issue here.

There is a bigger difference between the KJB and other translations. That’s where conceptual differences occur on a much more significant level. Translation has a great effect on interpretation. But it is ultimately an issue of what God’s words are said to mean.

WRONG DOCTRINES

A bunch of wrong doctrines have historical roots, but today, wrong interpretations are rooted in wrong translations and most especially backed up by wrong interpretations.

We have to understand that the Scripture is God’s message to mankind. It’s less about God giving specific messages to an individual in the Bible, and more about what God wants the whole Church to know.

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Peter 1:20, 21

The Scripture is primarily written on two levels, the natural writer writing to the original audience, and secondly, the Holy Ghost writing to the entire Church.

Because God is the author, we see that while there might be a natural and plain reading, there are often deeper spiritual meanings. This is the difference between what we might call the primary and plain reading or interpretation, and the deeper spiritual sense.

Just look at what Paul said about oxen treading out the corn, that while it shows care for livestock, it really was written primarily with the spiritual meaning, that labourers in the gospel ought to be rewarded.

At the same time, this does not mean that the Bible could just mean anything, or everything. The meanings are particular, known to God, and to be known to us.

THE WAR AND THE IMPOSITION OF MODERNISM

Today, the Devil is not using physical persecution to kill Christians in the Western world. He is using doubt and confusion about the Bible to destroy people’s faith.

Modernism, broadly, comes from a godless way of thinking about the world, as if there is no God. That way, instead of having the Holy Ghost interpret, you have to look to records of how men interpreted, and worse, you have to go to the lexicons and modernistic ways of interpreting as though God couldn’t possibly have a correct English Bible translation, and as though God couldn’t possibly have Christians today gaining right understanding, even though He promised that we shall know the truth.

The biggest and easiest way to pervert the meaning of the Bible is through all this talk about the Greek. Most wrong doctrines and wrong ideas today will be because people will say “the Greek here really means blah blah” and they will try to introduce a shift in ideas by talking about what the original languages really mean in light of the apparent culture of Bible times. The funny thing is that what they say the culture of Bible times is seems to be different from what the Bible actually teaches.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say there was a little door in the gate of a city and you had to unpack a camel to get it through the door. But this will be what people will say, meaning something ridiculous like, that you have to get rid of all your money and possessions before you can get into the Kingdom of God. There is no such teaching anywhere in the Bible, but that’s how they will interpret a certain passage.

MODERNIST HERMENEUTICS

Modernist hermeneutics are the way in which modern people (e.g. theologians, Calvinist intellectuals and in-crowders) interpret the Bible. They basically have a method. It goes like this: assume God doesn’t exist and you have to look at the words (grammar, style of writing and the contextual flow) and put them into the historical isagogic of who wrote to whom when (i.e. the historical context) and then cross a “principlizing bridge” which takes from the ancient era (another language, another culture, another time and another place) and brings the Scripture to some sort of sense and relevance that we can understand, learn from and apply today.

Notice in that method it isn’t about believing a doctrine of rightly understanding the Scripture as though God really can bring us to understand, but instead is all about some human science and art of interpreting.

MARK WARD IS A CHIEF ATTACKER

Mark Ward is writing a book to try to make out as if the language of the Bible doesn’t seem to mean what it seems to say. That there is something more and beyond the good old King James Bible.

I can only imagine the tripping ropes of inflexible thinking that it takes to argue that language has meaning beyond mere alleged “literal” meanings. No doubt, Ward will sufficiently cause us to doubt every normal statement made in English to then make out as if we cannot just take the King James Bible, which he will slur as belonging to a distant century, has added layers of difficulty.

This is a blatant lie, but one pushed by the mafia of modernist hermeneutics.

We all know that language can be non-literal and words can be contextual. But we shouldn’t be reading the Bible with mere natural, God-free logic. Language is not just some secular science, it’s a divine gift that needs to be practiced in light of its author. English as we know it (especially in the Bible) is not the product of a series of happenstance accidents but is divinely designed.

THE TRUTH IN ENGLISH

Mark Ward and others like him hold that the full truth cannot be in English. No, they see English as just a reflection, a bad reflection, of the real, deeply mystical (it seems) truth in the original languages. God inspired in Hebrew and Greek and somehow these languages are more holy. Also, modernism (you know that belief that there isn’t really an interventionary God), says that you can’t actually get the full meaning from the originals into English. (And that’s if they know what it really means in the original languages!)

HOW MEANINGS OF WORDS ARE CONTROLLED

Like the Newspeak Dictionary in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is a special lexicon that tells the modernist what a word might mean. This is a lexicon called BDAG, which was made by modernists who use a method as though God is not in control of languages or that God can actually communicate truth to common Christians.

No! You have to go through these special hierophant authorities, and BDAG was made to give an extensive list of words from Greek, and then guesses as to their meanings. Out of these different options of meanings, a modern day user (peddler) of Greek can then choose which meaning he (or “she” if your name is Faith Womack) thinks best fits the context at a certain place. These meanings come from a variety of eras and sources, so it’s by no means restricted to Christian texts. Furthermore BDAG is the letters of the surnames of the men who made the work.

Bauer = Higher Critic, Liberal, Historical-Critical, big “M” Modernist
Danker = Moderate, Higher Critic, big “M” Modernist
Arndt = Secular-backed, conservative, evangelical, small “m” modernist
Gingrich = Neutral scholar, centrist, small “m” modernist

WHAT IS WARD’S WAR ON WORDS REALLY ABOUT?

What could possibly motivate a financially struggling man like Mark Ward, but the promise of funds for his work in reverence to his higher masters. His higher masters being certain leaders in the entire industry of impositional interpretation.

You see, Christians must be told that they CANNOT be allowed to safely interpret Scripture for themselves, because they couldn’t possibly be led by the Spirit of God. What they need (apparently) is good advice, good tools which means buying stuff and listening to guides like Mark Ward.

There’s a whole industry of products that exist that are said to be needed. These products include paying for the privilege of attending their institutions of higher learning. By “their” I mean both sides of the Christian industry, the got-at Pentecostal ones as much as the got-at Reformed ones. The intellectual mafia might sit like a curia in the intellectual side of Christianity (Baptists, Presbyterians and Reformed), but is just as much at work through the cognate world of Pentecostalism and Charismaticism. Everywhere where it is taught that the “Greek” really means something other than what the Bible says, they are there.

BUT, HE PROTESTETH

Mark Ward will say he is not at war with the King James Bible and “loves” it, even though this entire exercise is specifically designed to fight the meanings of words in the King James Bible.

They will say that they are not Liberal/Modernist/Higher Critics, even though everything they have is like the evangelical-friendly version of the same sources. Mark Ward is a small “m” modernist, which is a dangerous leaven in Christianity.

They will say that you can use the tools for free so you don’t need to spend a dollar getting “educated” by “hermeneutics”. That’s called voluntary subjection where one puts themselves on a low level and denies that the Holy Ghost practically leads into truth.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Colossians 2:18

THE REAL ANSWER

There is a mighty doctrine of the Scripture that says that we can know. We can attain. We can understand. We can access all necessary wisdom.

This blows up the entire library of books of hermeneutics, every lexicon and all the books about choosing the right Bible translation for your fleshly desires.

Believers should align to the truth, not listen to Mark Ward’s classifications of “common Bible study errors”.

But, an objector may say, “every Christian is interpreting for themselves” and “there are so many doctrinal disagreements” and “there are so many varieties and subsects of Protestantism today”.

Here is the answer. If all Christians align with the Holy Ghost’s interpreting they are going to be interpreting for themselves rightly. If Christians align with the truth of the Holy Ghost’s leading and teaching in their proper study of relying on King James Bible English words, then we will align to the standards of the truth, not multiplicity of doctrines. If we look to Jesus and think after God, then I am sure we will align to sound doctrine.

28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Isaiah 44:28

The building of Jerusalem is by a Spirit-led people being actually Spirit-led, and the foundation to the temple is the true Scripture, the actual truth of the Scripture clearly known at the basis of a proper Church movement in the Earth.

And now you will see how the modernist approach disallows this interpretation because they both disbelieve it and have a method to not make the Scripture say or be understood to mean this thing.

Editorial

Another attack falls flat — part 2

Rick Norris (logos1560) is known for his attack on the King James Bible, especially by his bringing up of different editions and the variations within them.

Of course, there is an easy answer to this, but Norris doesn’t want an answer, he wants to make out as if it is all chaos.

Norris also is deceptive in how he presents facts. For example, he rightly indicates that various Cambridge printed KJVs from after the year 1900 follow changes made in the 1873 Edition. That 1873 Edition is Scrivener’s, but it is only a relative few of Scrivener’s changes that are accepted. In fact, the changes that are accepted are largely corrections back to the 1611 Edition, although some work in apostrophes is also accepted from Scrivener.

What Norris does not tell is the evidence that the Victorian Cambridge text was edited with some drawing on Scrivener’s book (rather than his edition) but also is a unique work on its own (e.g. Ezra 2:26 “Geba” was not drawn from Scrivener).

Norris looks at the editorial history, giving his own lists of variations, and drawing on David Norton and Lawrence Vance. He obviously likes the work of modernist David Norton, who only mentions the changes within Cambridge printings in the 20th century in passing with little detail, but also he likes Lawrence Vance because he wants to create a wedge between those who uphold the KJB.

Norris’ word lists are extensive and accurate, and Vance’s work is extremely good. Norris of course does not adhere to any KJV as being “accurate” in that he harbours views against the KJB’s text and translation in places. Norris has ideological reasons to prefer the Geneva and Tyndale over the KJB, which is based on a small-minded opinion regarding a particular Puritan view.

Vance, on the other hand, is a real gentleman and scholar, and his position is that he points to a current Cameo Reference text as the apparently providentially supplied standard. Vance’s preference differs from the critical form Pure Cambridge Edition in a few places (there are PCEs that have these things).

Genesis 41:56 “and” instead of “And”

1 Chron. 2:55 “Hammath” instead of “Hemath”

1 Chron. 13:5 “Hamath” instead of “Hemath”

Amos 6:14 “Hamath” instead of “Hemath”

These are Vance’s differences to the PCE:

Acts 11:12 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”

Acts 11:28 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”

1 John 5:8 “Spirit” instead of “spirit”

Norris has falsely said, “Matthew Verschuur does not actually demonstrate that the edition of the KJV that he compiled and calls the ‘pure’ one…”

The problem for Norris is that the Pure Cambridge Edition has been printed from 1911, so it cannot be something that I “compiled”. There are many editions from multiple publishers which present the PCE.

Regarding the 12 tests to determine the PCE, Norris claims, “Twelve individual renderings in an entire KJV edition are not enough to determine which edition is better or more accurate.”

Norris has missed the point. The 12 points are not meant to be the definitive proofs of an edition being the best, they are just identifying markers of the PCE as compared to other editions, which taken collectively, identify that a text is a PCE.

Here are some good quotes from Norris:

“KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: ‘There are 750 differences between the 1769 Blayney edition of the Authorized Version and modern King James Bibles: 461 Old Testament and 189 New Testament’ (Text of the KJB, p. 220). KJV-only author Matthew Verschuur asserted: ‘One of the most enduring myths regarding the King James Bible is that the common and standard edition in use in the 20th and 21st centuries is the 1769 Edition’ (Vintage Bibles, p. 47).”

At least Norris looked at my book!

Editorial

Another attack falls flat — part 1

Anti-KJV crusader, Rick Norris (logos1560), has somewhere on the internet gleefully quoted from the mistaken Bryan Ross in his view on the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Instead of recognising the historical reality of the PCE, made by Anglicans, printed by Cambridge, from probably 1910/1911, Norris wants to weave a story of doubt and error.

Norris always will side with anything that is against the KJB or against the PCE. He attacked D. A. Waite, treating the earnest man as if he were a fuddy-duddy in his views on the KJB. Norris was able to use data to outshine Waite’s admittedly amateurish research, and attacked him ungraciously because he is always compelled against the KJB. And when scholar David Daniell wrote something against the KJB, Norris would be there clapping and agreeing in a heartbeat.

So when Bryan Ross mistakenly (and I suspect deliberately) tried to make out as if the PCE was my own invention and a Pentecostal conspiracy, of course Norris leapt on this with characteristic spitefulness, repeating every error he could cast his eyes upon.

For example, I said you can identity a PCE as opposed to another edition by seeing that the PCE aligns to a set of 12 tests. Ross mistakenly said that these were places which were “Pentecostal”, when in fact, these tests were drawn from Baptist sources.

There is nothing more “Pentecostal” for having “spirit” rather than “Spirit”, when Pentecostals certainly would have tended to prefer “Spirit”. So, it is obviously a nonsense that was invented as a slur rather than reality.

Furthermore, Norris quotes Ross saying that in my 2013 draft Guide to the PCE I didn’t identify “by year, publisher, printer, or edition code” the first PCE.

Well, this is rather misleading, especially since we have 100 years of copies. The first printer and publisher was John Clay and Cambridge, which is blatantly obvious. They didn’t use edition codes then like now (for example, ISBNs were not in use back then). And as for a year date, I said circa 1900, and circa 1900s. In fact, at this time, the earliest known printing is from 1911.

Norris accuses me of not saying a specific year date, but shouldn’t he really accuse Cambridge University Press themselves for not knowing? Why blame me when I am doing the research that CUP have not done. In other words, Norris and Ross bend so far to say something bad, that no one knowing something is apparently my fault. I’m the one who has discovered the 1911 copy, which is the earliest known copy of the Lectern Bible (quarto size).

Norris also quotes Ross, in a grand deception, claiming that “Verschuur himself acknowledges that no single printed Bible contained the exact PCE text, and that the uniform PCE had to be constructed by comparing many inconsistent ‘vintage’ printings.”

Does Norris deny that a specific editing of the Cambridge KJV took place early in the 20th century? Does Norris deny that there is a Bible with the date 1911? Does Norris deny that the PCE existed before I was born? Does Norris deny that millions of copies of this Edition was printed in many editions over the years?

Weirdly, Norris has written his own book against the PCE in which he attacks me (rather than it), and seems to know that it is a 20th century Cambridge Edition. Funny how he is more willing to quote someone’s accusation than what he knows scientifically.

So he knows the reality but he is willing to repeat an error because it serves his purpose of rejecting the KJB and its supporters by apparently any means necessary. Lying is okay, it seems, because the ends (destroying the idea that the KJB is perfect) allows and justifies any means to accomplish his purpose. Deception, propaganda and twisting the narrative are in.

Norris then gives Ross’ claim that I made the PCE.

Does Norris ignore that the PCE editing is consistent and persistent throughout a century of editions, so that at about 50 key places, the same things are seen, which differ to the Victorian Cambridge (and Oxford Editions?)

I am sure that Norris knows, as has also been shown in Lawrence Vance’s work, that there is a definite set of editorial differences. David Norton indicates some, and of course they know I have listed it all extensively.

So it is untrue that there are “inconsistent” vintage printings, there are just some very slight minor variations, in very few places. But all of these show the same editorial work, so they are the same Edition, which is to say, they are all examples of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Norris is gloatingly quoting Ross because he will say that every PCE printing size is different. How different? Let me explain. The same Edition is found in many copies over many years, so it isn’t about having a “first printing” when in fact what is needed is a last presentation, like a critical edition. And the differences? A mere few things like hyphen here or whether it is “and” or “And” there. It’s like three little things here or there.

That’s what the text provided on the Bible Protector website does. It gives the Edition of the 20th century that began perhaps in 1911. But as an electronic text it also is free from any internal errors, like a misplaced full stop or something, which can happen in electronic texts (just as in historical printings).

Let’s be honest, the supposed inconsistency in PCE printings by Cambridge is greatly exaggerated. CUP in fact is a careful, reputable publisher. In comparing the PCE on the Bible Protector website with a 1927 Cambridge Cameo Refs (which is also PCE), there is only one variation, at Genesis 41:56, apart from a known accidental typographical defect of Cambridge’s failure to print the final stop at the very end of the Book of Mark. The PCE copy on my website doesn’t have any issues, so it should be used for a standard copy.

Rick Norris knows of scores of variations with other printings of the KJB, and should know better than to give an alleged Pentecostal conspiracy about the PCE. There is no conspiracy, the PCE is for all the Body of Christ, including believing Pentecostals.

Editorial, Review

Bowers and updated KJV projects

INTRODUCTION

There’s a real problem in the King James Bible supporting camp of people who want to “correct” its editions to the point of making changes to some editorial choices that have occurred, to some italics, to some archaic words and maybe even some translations in places.

This approach is fraught with danger, because one change is dangerous enough. Any change should be dealt with the utmost of caution, in fact, it is something that should not happen at all. After all, who is qualified to make any changes, and will it receive widespread consent.

When Benjamin Blayney made his editorial changes throughout the Bible, he did not change the translation and he did not change the underlying text. His changes were vast but also conservative.

Having myself operated in the space of analysing the editing which created the Pure Cambridge Edition back in the early 20th century, and having copy edited it into a stable electronic form, now used by printers and publishers internationally, I know how needful changes have been very conservative, and I have myself done one thing which no one has yet objected to, which is make the “s” at the end of “LORD’s” a lower case “s”. That’s the last “change” that has happened, and if that is to be accepted, then that’s it.

I do not want the door to be open to arbitrary changes. Some Cambridge Bibles these days have “Hammath” at 1 Chronicles 2:55. That’s something which would have to go away (even though that exists in many of their PCE printings as well).

But people have this itch. Maybe it’s because they believe there are “false friends” in the KJB, or hard words that need to be changed, or inconsistencies in the italics or some other changes. To admit one change like this opens the door for a thousand, and where do we go from there. It is much better for us to accept and stick with a standard edition as an ensign than to delude ourselves that there are all these minor faults that “we” can correct. That is pride, a spirit of personal exaltation and deception.

Now I know that there can be good Christian believers, ones who uphold the KJB, who may think of this, who may think to themselves that they could be the one to do this.

If I were of that old Jesuitical spirit, and I wished to question to the subtlest point, the grounds of something in the editions of the KJB would be the last “hail Mary” attempt to do this.

KENYON BOWERS AND HABAKKUK 3:19

Kenyon Bowers has written an article where he begins from the Hebrew as his authority, and his own mind as the judge, stating, “In my own study, I found a particular KJV reading that made no sense in light of the underlying Hebrew.”

What he is going to do is claim that the reading of “LORD God” in the 1611 Edition, 1769 Edition and PCE are wrong. He wants it to be “Lord GOD”.

First, he shows pictures of the Hebrew. The Hebrew shows of course that the KJB is right, if we are to do that method of looking at Hebrew, we can easily see “LORD God”, that is to say in Hebrew, JeHoVaH ADoNI, which of course obviously would be “LORD God” in that construction.

Kenyon Bowers then shows the motivation he has is essentially to impose his understanding of the alleged Hebrew and this leads him to reject the Pure Cambridge Edition specifically (in other words, he is going out of his way to attack the PCE not merely the 1769 which has fed into all present editions which have the same thing as the PCE.)

It is also clear that Kenyon Bowers considers “LORD God” to be “the KJV”, so he’s really attacking the KJB itself by his own admission. (In fact, he says he is not KJV-only even though at one time he was.)

We can see why “LORD God” is correct because it matches exactly to the Hebrew. We can see that in the LXX they had “Lord the God” which is inverted as “God the Lord”, we can see in Latin it has “Lord God”. Luther simply has “LORD”. In Coverdale’s Bible it read “The LORDE God”, but the Geneva and Bishops’ had “The Lord God”. Thus, in 1611 the KJV rightly had “The LORD God”.

In 1629 however, the editors decided to change it to “Lord GOD”. We don’t know who they were, but we know in 1638 some of the surviving translators were involved. Even Scrivener suggested that the 1629 editors were wrong.

Now there are places where the Bible has “Lord GOD”, but there’s obviously a reason why “LORD God” is right here. It certainly matches the historical evidence, besides the fact that the editorial aberration appeared from 1629 through to 1762 (Cambridge), 1769 (Oxford), and earlier editions. (The Paris of 1762 is not the same as the Parris of 1743.) Some editions, not following Blayney, persisted with the aberration, but obviously the PCE and various other editions from the 19th century, 20th century and this century are following Blayney.

It’s very sad that Kenyon Bowers has rejected the correctness of the KJV, and that instead of being able to accept that “LORD God” is correct, he has accepted the wrong notion of the alleged Hebrew and his own thinking rather than a correct understanding of the text, the acceptance of the correctness of the KJB and that there are good but occasionally incorrect things in the editing of 1629. If the 1629 was right, why was there a 1638 and a 1769?

CONCLUSION

We must humble ourselves to understand that God speaks and shows truth, not to try to impose our own will.

Human reasoning and being tossed about on the sea of no final authority is hardly a way to be, but as God has outworked to manifest things, then we ought to conform to that.

It would be rather silly if someone decided to bring out a new edition of the KJB, and make one change like at Habakkuk 3:19, and if one change, why not let the man who would love to be a consulting editor, Mark Ward, make some “gentle” changes. Where does it go from there? It is clear that if a little leaven is allowed, it will go the whole way through.

I am confident, however, despite the deceptions of the NKJV foreword and other attempts, that nothing will unsettle the KJB. In the words of John William Burgon, “It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611, — the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version.’”

That’s quite different to having a defined-style or critical Bible, where things are put as footnotes or whatever, to give the notes on important variations in editions and definitions for difficult words, and so forth, but whether such a project eventuate as a help and handmaid, I think we are safely served by what we have right now.

Even Burgon suggested it, but I am not very convinced, “we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.”

Editorial, General

Providence, population and perfection

One of the objections that is made about the idea that the King James Bible (and specifically the Pure Cambridge Edition) are perfect today, is the idea that these only exist in recent history, and not for most of world history since 4004 BC (or whenever creation was).

They can ask why would the KJB be right, when the Early Church did not have it?

The answer is obvious and simple, which is that just as Scripture has been revealed successively through history, so also have truths been understood. The Council of Nicaea articulated truths in 325 AD, and it makes sense that the best textual work and translation occurred in 1611.

Remember, in 1571 BC, when Moses was born, no one had any Scripture (except maybe the Book of Job). The world’s population is estimated to have been less than 50 million at the time. (Different modelling puts out different numbers from 10 million to 50 million for the death of Moses in approx. 1451 BC.)

If at the time of Joshua there was a maximum of 2 million Israelites, and the world population was 50 million, that’s 1/25th of the world’s population that could know Scripture.

Let’s move forward to when the entire Old Testament was complete, to when it was even translated into Greek, and available in the Roman world, when Jesus was doing His earthly ministry.

The world’s population is estimated to be 170–300 million at the time. How many people knew either Hebrew or Greek, and could access the Old Testament? Not China, not most of Africa, not the Americas, not Greater Germania and not even people who only knew Latin and Celtic/Gallic languages.

If we jump forward to the time of the Reformation and Ottoman expansion, in 1517, estimates are of 460–500 million people in the world. This was before the Bible was translated into German by Luther or into English by Tyndale.

We see the providence of the printing press, the rise of the English-speaking peoples, the spread of Protestant Christianity and the increase of literacy.

Maybe 1% of the entire world spoke English when the King James Bible was translated.

But what do we see? Growth and advancement that helps the spread of Christianity and the rise of the KJB.

Population growth estimates are:

  • French Revolution (1789): ~700–900 million
  • End of World War I (1918): ~1.8–1.9 billion
  • End of World War II (1945): ~2.3–2.5 billion
  • Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): ~5.3 billion
  • September 11, 2001: ~6.1 billion
  • 2026: ~8.3 billion

In the same period we see the growth of the English language:

  • 1611: Approximately 1% of the world spoke English natively; virtually none as a second language
  • 1789: Around 2% native, with 1–2% second-language speakers
  • 1918: Approximately 6–7% native, 3–5% second-language
  • 1945: Roughly 8% native, 5–7% second-language
  • 1989: About 7% native, 10–15% second-language
  • 2001: Around 6% native, 15–20% second-language
  • 2026: Approximately 5% native, but 25% or more of the global population knows English as a second language

Think also about exploration (colonisation), advancement in travel and communication/information technologies. We have advanced in computing in the 20th century, and the internet has boomed in the 21st.

So a perfect Bible in English in 1611 makes sense, because the majority of the world’s population growth is happening since the 20th century.

Between 2000 and COVID-19 (2020), English became the most dominant language in the world, outrunning Chinese. However, it is the fact that many people are learning English as a second language that makes it beneficial.

The Pure Cambridge Edition was first published before the First World War. It existed by being printed in the millions over the decades. It is rising to acknowledged prominence by the internet and international mailing.

All of this ties together the important points that the King James Bible is the Bible for the future. It points to why a perfect English Bible version is rising in these days, and not in the time of the Crusades or something.

It is important to link together the dominance of the English-speaking nations, and the power of the truth of the Gospel. The Gospel is having impact into the world, and the best theology comes from the English-speaking nations (whether people argue for Baptists, Westminster Confession/Presbyterianism, Wesleyanism/Holiness and/or Pentecostalism, etc.).

In South America, the Gospel is increasing to some degree (though there are questions about specific Pentecostal brands of Christianity with the South American lower classes), which itself is having an effect of bringing them to the English language (since Christian music exists primarily in English, for example).

One can see the potential for using the KJB and true Gospel preaching impacting into places like South Korea, India, Africa, South America and through the Pacific (which has already been impacted by Evangelicalism).

There are more than ever people alive today who need the Gospel. English is more than ever spoken. The KJB is more than ever available.

It is now possible for more people than ever to receive and use a perfect Bible. Therefore, we can see the potential for true and impactful world evangelism.

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

Editorial, General

Time, Gravity and Matter

A Universal-Time Interpretation of Physical Processes

INTRODUCTION

According to the Bible, time is flowing at a universal rate, whether on Earth or in space.

Using a creationist model, it would appear that light was instantaneous in Genesis 1, but that light decay occurred in the universe since the fall of man, and has now stabilised at a fairly constant rate.

It is my intention to present a view of the universe which necessarily rejects Einstein’s unbelieving general relativity, and which builds upon a correct Newtonian view.

We will therefore hypothesise a framework in which time is absolute and universal, flowing at a constant rate from past to future, independent of location, motion or gravitational potential.

We will reject the usual modernistic explanation that time is moving a different rates as one moves up from sea level. Instead, we will suggest that observed discrepancies in clocks, atomic transitions and biological processes are explained not by a relative passage of time but by the physical effect of gravity on matter. Gravity acts as a universal regulator, influencing the rate of atomic, chemical and biological processes.

Light maintains a universal speed, with minor local distortions possible, and historically decayed from near-instantaneous velocity to its present stable value. This model perpetuates a Newtonian understanding of time, aligns with experimental observations such as satellite clock behaviour and freefall phenomena, and avoids conceptual complications associated with relativistic spacetime curvature and time dilation.

We are overthrowing Einsteinian error.

CORE CONCEPTS

Historically, the consensus of Christian societies were built upon the Newtonian view of the universe that recognised time as absolute and uniform, flowing independently of physical events, and three dimensional space as a fixed, consistent framework. Consider Newton’s clockwork universe as operating in this way.

In contrast, Einsteinian relativity introduced a variable-driven, location-dependent concept of time, predicting that clocks in different gravitational potentials or moving at different velocities tick at different rates—a phenomenon commonly referred to as time dilation.

While this relativity seemed to be predictive, particularly in technologies such as GPS, its interpretation relies on the presupposition that time itself is relative. This paper disposes that view to set back truth, that a universal-time framework in which observed clock discrepancies and other relativistic phenomena can be fully explained as physical effects of gravity on matter, rather than variations in the passage of time.

Therefore, gravity itself is sort of like aether, where large planetary and stellar objects cause what could be imagined to be denseness, strength of gravity, and moving away from them, weakness of gravity, and that the strength of gravity holds things in orbit or draws things (e.g. a ball falls to the ground, a comet whizzes toward the sun).

PRINCIPLES

  • Absolute universal time

Time is considered a constant, universal flow, identical across all locations and independent of motion or gravitational potential. The passage of time cannot be accelerated, slowed, or controlled by human devices; it is a fundamental property of the universe.

  • Gravity as a regulator of matter

Gravity is a universal influence acting on all matter with mass. It affects all physical processes proportionally, including:

  • Atomic transitions
  • Nuclear decay
  • Chemical reactions
  • Biological processes, such as neural firing

Clocks do not experience “slower” time in stronger gravitational fields; they tick differently because their internal physical processes are directly influenced by gravity.

  • Light’s decay and current stable universal speed

Light propagates at a universal speed in the current universe. While minor local distortions may occur due to interaction with gravitational fields, its global speed remains consistent. Historical observations suggest that light may have decayed from near-instantaneous speeds in the early universe to the present stable value. This provides a coherent explanation for cosmological observations without requiring time itself to vary.

OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE

  • Atomic clocks

Atomic clocks placed at different altitudes or velocities show consistent variations in tick rates. In this model:

  • A clock at sea level ticks at 1 second per standard unit
  • A clock in orbit might tick at say 0.97 seconds per the same standard unit

These differences reflect the physical influence of gravity on the atoms and electrons of the clock, not a change in the passage of time.

  • Freefall and satellites

Clocks in freefall, such as on orbiting satellites, behave as if unaffected by gravity, consistent with the experience of weightlessness. This occurs because the momentum state of freefall alters the manifestation of gravity on physical processes, even though universal gravity continues to act on all matter.

  • Grounded clocks, under constant gravitational acceleration, are affected directly.
  • Freefall clocks exhibit normal behaviour, as observed in orbital satellites.
  • Biological processes

Neurons, metabolic cycles and other biological processes respond proportionally to local gravitational potential. Therefore, a brain at high altitude or in orbit may operate at slightly different rates compared with a brain at sea level, reflecting gravity’s regulation of matter, not a relative flow of time.

  • Light and electromagnetism

While the speed of light remains globally constant:

  • Minor local gravitational interactions can produce observable effects, such as redshift or bending of light, without requiring time itself to be variable. (The universe itself may be expanding since creation, which may also account for redshift.)
  • This ensures causality is preserved and measurement consistency remains intact.

CONCEPTUAL IMPLICATIONS

  • No time dilation

All phenomena traditionally interpreted as time dilation are fully explained as physical effects of gravity on matter. No clock, neuron, or atomic process measures a different universal time; instead, their rates of operation are influenced by gravity.

  • Gravity as a universal regulator

Gravity is not a localised force acting inconsistently; it is a universal regulator that proportionally influences all matter. Because matter cannot be shielded from gravity, all processes are affected in predictable, proportional ways, producing the exact observations attributed to relativistic effects.

  • Simplicity of universal time

By positing universal time, the model eliminates the need for spacetime curvature, relative time metrics, or multiple frames of reference. Observations across locations, altitudes, and velocities are consistent with a single, universal clock regulated only by the physical influence of gravity.

ADVANTAGES OVER RELATIVISTIC MODELS

  • Conceptual simplicity preserves Newtonian absolute time and consistency with the Scripture.
  • Consistency with experimental data: atomic clocks, satellite measurements, freefall phenomena.
  • Predictive differences in clock rates, biological processes, and atomic transitions are fully explained by gravity’s proportional influence on matter.
  • Compatible with a universal light speed. Minor distortions are local and do not contradict measurement standards.

REJECTION OF THE MODERNIST MODEL

It is crucial to emphasise a fundamental distinction often overlooked in conventional physics: predictive agreement does not imply causal truth. Relativity correctly predicts observed variations in clock rates, atomic transitions, and other phenomena. However, interpreting these observations as evidence that time itself flows differently is a metaphysical assumption, not an empirically demonstrated fact.

In the universal-time framework, these same phenomena are fully explained without invoking a mutable time. Gravity acts as a universal regulator of matter, altering the rates of atomic, chemical, and biological processes. The differences observed in clocks or biological functions are not evidence of “time dilation” but rather of gravity’s physical influence on matter. Time itself remains constant, universal and unchanging.

This distinction is more than semantic. It advances understanding by providing a causal account of observed behaviours: whereas relativity treats time variations as a mysterious property of the universe, the universal-time model attributes changes to tangible interactions of matter with gravity — an approach consistent with Newtonian intuition and the observed regularities of the physical world.

In short, phenomena traditionally described as time dilation are not inexplicable “temporal magic”; they are observable manifestations of matter’s response to gravity, all occurring within a single, absolute temporal framework.

CONCLUSION

This approach offers a credible and conceptually coherent alternative to the prevailing Einsteinian framework. By positing a universal-time, gravity-as-regulator model, the universe can be understood in terms of tangible, causal interactions, rather than abstract manipulations of an elusive “flow” of time.

Key principles of this model include:

  • Time itself is constant and universal, independent of motion, location, or gravitational potential.
  • Gravity regulates all matter, proportionally affecting clocks, atomic transitions, chemical reactions, and biological processes. Differences in clock rates or neuronal activity are not evidence of time itself changing, rather, they are the result of matter responding to gravity.
  • Clocks do not control or measure time; they reveal the effects of gravity on the matter within them.
  • Light propagates at a stable universal speed, with only minor local distortions that do not contradict measurement standards.
  • Phenomena traditionally attributed to time dilation are fully explained without invoking relative time or curved spacetime.

By reframing physical phenomena in this way, the model preserves classical Newtonian intuition, aligns with empirical evidence, and avoids the conceptual complexities and metaphysical assumptions inherent in relativity. Whereas Einsteinian relativity interprets observed variations as intrinsic alterations in the flow of time, the universal-time framework attributes them to tangible, causal interactions of matter with gravity, providing a clear and mechanistic understanding.

In this view, the universe operates under absolute time, with gravity as a universal regulator and light as a consistent reference for all physical processes. Observed variations in clocks, biological processes, and atomic transitions are simply manifestations of matter’s response to gravity, all occurring within a single, unchanging temporal framework. This model offers a coherent, causal, and conceptually simpler foundation for understanding the cosmos, preserving both empirical consistency and the intuitive clarity of Newtonian physics.

Editorial, General

Promoting orderly Christianity

INTRODUCTION

Liturgy and devotion are two important facets of how a Christian interfaces with God.

Liturgy means the manner of how church (e.g. Sunday public worship) and religious services (weddings, funerals, etc.) are ordered and relates to their content, their use of the Scripture and other elements, particularly scripted elements. Liturgy can also involve the religious content, including Scripture readings, that is used by other organisations, or at other times, for example again weddings and funerals, but also baptisms, child dedications or other services.

Devotion means the manner of family altar, private gatherings and especially personal interaction with the Lord.

While evangelicalism and especially Pentecostalism have largely loosed themselves from the constraints of templates and formulaic prayer, there are still patterns to be found in Word of Faith teachings as regards to model sermons/studies (e.g. the Kenneth Copeland Reference Bible) and model prayers (e.g. prayer of petition, tithing prayer, etc.)

THE NEED FOR COMMONALITY

Different denominations and movements have their own prayer books, hymn books, etc.

The Word of Faith Movement has several books containing prayers, such as, Prayers that Avail Much (original) by Germaine Copeland (not related to Kenneth Copeland), and secondarily material by Lynne Hammond.

It also has been telling that all kinds of Christians have used the Anglican Book of Common Prayer’s wedding ceremony as a tradition. It is this tradition which keeps the use of a wedding ring as a custom for marriage.

Reading the Scripture through the year, in church or personally can be well guided by using the charts of the Book of Common Prayer for daily, Sunday and special day readings. I think this would be good for encouraging the personal reading of Scripture and also having everyone reading/hearing the same thing every day.

Not everything would be useful from the Book of Common Prayer, of course, including Apocrypha readings, but it certainly is a good and common resource to draw upon.

It is also important to understand how the Book of Common Prayer works, in that it has a fixed position of the year and a moveable portion of the year, and that requires switching from one calendar to another so many weeks before Easter, and this continues on until so many weeks after Easter. This is because Easter moves every year.

THE 1662 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

The Book of Common Prayer has developed out of the deep Reformation era, and the common form as it stands now is called the 1662. There are also modernised, localised and translated forms of the Book of Common Prayer, but we are not advocating in any direction that way.

The Book of Common Prayer has altered in ways since 1662 but still is called the 1662. It alters in regards to naming the current monarch of England, and also in 1859 some content was removed.

One of the removed elements that is really good, and to be retained on its own, now independent of the Anglican/Episcopal church is the content in regards to the Gunpowder Plot and Landing of William III, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/nov5.pdf

I have copies of the BCP: a Queen Victoria, Oxford, 1900 and a Queen Elizabeth II, Cambridge, 1954. Older copies can easily be sourced from archive.org, see also here: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/1662.html

FURTHERANCE

Whereas it is expedient to retain, restore or alter elements of common liturgy and devotion arising from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, its practice can continue privately or in church services under the concept of a Protestant titular bishoprick of Bethlehem. I discuss related matters here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1777l7qmCWorAcFq5zOEwIajhbjuOlQlK/view

1 Corinthians 14:33 and 40 states:
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Order and conformity would mean that we should use the same Bible, a time-honoured and correct one. Only the King James Bible should be the standard and guide. In regards to the question about editions, it is good to have the Pure Cambridge Edition.

The Book of Common Prayer uses the Lord’s Prayer from pre-1611, and likewise the readings of the Scripture can be printed in forms not consistent with the Pure Cambridge Edition, so these can be altered. In the creeds, they can be followed, but “catholick” and “virgin” should be lowercase. Also, as mentioned, the Apocrypha readings are not required.

The Book of Common Prayer should be used as a resource that can be drawn upon, for weddings, words for certain days of the year, especially the 5 November material, and would be an excellent guide for daily readings and Sunday readings, and can be used in church or personally.

In this way we can follow the irenic encouragement for orderly Christianity in line with the Word and Spirit movement.

The Word and Spirit perspective does not conform to any single Protestant stream in total, but to recover and synthesise those doctrinal, devotional and practical strengths which have been preserved in different parts of the Protestant inheritance.

Word and Spirit draws together two streams of King James Only (Pure Cambridge Edition) Fundamentalism and Word of Faith Pentecostalism, but also encompasses vast elements of Multiple fulfilments of Bible Prophecy which includes Historicism (traditional Protestantism), millenarianism (Puritan), higher life entire sanctification Christian perfection (Holiness), creation (Fundamentalism), law and grace (Wesley/Finney and Reformed Evangelicalism), etc.

One also must mention the preference for Redemption Hymnal and a common pool of classic choruses, including those by David Ingles.

CONCLUSION

Having commonality in liturgy and devotion is very helpful in orderly Christianity. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a good resource for selective usage. The aim of the Word and Spirit movement is not merely insular but universal, therefore Christians are encouraged to conform to the pattern shown them.

Just as the Pure Cambridge Edition is the common inheritance for all Christians, so right Protestantism should be held to as a matter of common faith.

Editorial, Review

Translation and editing are two different things

The King James Bible was made in 1611 as a product of translators translating. Then, over the years, as it would be expected copy-editors and editors have done editorial work.

The editorial work has not been to change, edit, fix or corrupt the translation, it has rather been to correct typographical errors, standardise grammar and spelling, regularise elements of the English presentation and the like.

Having said that, some work by American publishers has been dangerous in its direction, such as trying to change a word like “bewray” which has one meaning to the similar looking word “betray” which has quite another.

But in normal editions, from 1611 to the present time, the translation has not been altered. The translation means the words used in English to present what was first written in the original languages.

Early in my “remote” debate with Bryan Ross of early 2026, I found that Ross essentially believes that editing the King James Bible changes the translation of the King James Bible. He tried to backtrack by explaining, through someone, that he meant that you would have to look at the originals in relation to changing the italics.

Ross now says in a document, “I show that one cannot simultaneously affirm a perfectly preserved translation and a uniquely perfect edition without contradiction”. Hence, Ross must believe that the editing in editions changes the translation.

It is interesting that he hides this statement in his final summary of the debate. Earlier, I called him out on this erroneous belief, and he and his friends acted like it was a very bad thing to question this. In fact, the emotion in one of the volatile responses indicated to me at the time the real nature of where this was all at.

I expect that there has been some emotional reaction in relation to the conflict that Ross and his friends have had with other King James Bible people.

It is apparent now that Ross has departed from a proper understanding of the King James Bible, in that he has allowed wrong ideas from the modernist David Norton to cloud his assessment on editions, to the point where he thinks that editorial work within the history of the KJB is really changing the translation.

So let’s properly understand the reality here.

ONE. SCRIPTURE. The Scripture is true, whether in the autographs, original language copies, Textus Receptus editions, foreign translations or in English Reformation translations.

TWO. VERSION. The gathered text of the Scripture, while is present in Textus Receptus editions, is actually finalised, exact and perfect in the King James Bible. These are the readings of the Authorized Version.

THREE. TRANSLATION. The turning of the originals into English has been done since the Reformation, from Tyndale to the King James Bible, but the best and perfectly correct translation is the King James Bible’s translation.

If there are words today that people do not understand or label as “archaic”, this accusation or assessment cannot withstand that the King James Bible’s translation is right, and that its particular word choices are correct.

FOUR. EDITION. The editing of the King James Bible has occurred generally progressively, and is primarily concerned with the correction of typographical errors, standardised grammar and spelling and other regularisation. The best and correct Edition is the Pure Cambridge Edition.

FIVE. SETTING FORTH. Each time a setting or an edition is made of an Edition, it may accidentally have some typographical error of the presswork, or it may contain some copy-editorial level variation in a letter or a hyphen mark. These exceedingly minor issues have been dealt with, in that the Bible Protector website has put out scrupulously correct typographically exact text files of the Pure Cambridge Edition, so that this setting is the derivative exemplary master of them all.

We cannot confuse things in the number four or five category with number three category. They are entirely separate to each other. This is not to deny that there are attacks on the King James Bible’s translation, but these are in some sorts of updated or modernised “new” KJVs, not in normal editions from normal publishers.

Ross states, again, “I show that one cannot simultaneously affirm a perfectly preserved translation and a uniquely perfect edition without contradiction”. The problem is that Ross does not show this at all: he utterly fails to show this, because the King James Bible translation of 1611 is entirely present in current editions, and there is no contradiction at all.

The Pure Cambridge Edition presents exactly and properly the KJB translators’ work. Editing ensures that the intended meaning and translation of the KJB men is presented today.

Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB!