SECTION ONE

The Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible has existed a long time, for many decades, and is therefore very fitting to be considered as a genuine and standard representation of the King James Bible.

In his lesson #273 on the history of the King James Bible text, Bryan Ross continued ignoring the actual history of the Pure Cambridge Edition, but rather just concentrated his study on my beliefs. He obviously has very different views in relation to Pentecostalism, so I think that’s a lot of the reason why he is pushing so far into this area.

Remember, that I am clear that I have beliefs, and am upfront about them. Remember also that the King James Bible is in the hands of the Body of Christ, so this is not my property. And also, the Pure Cambridge Edition existed for a long time before I was ever born, so again, it is commendable as a standard, even if Ross has real problems with my Pentecostal beliefs. (One Pentecostal can have issues with other Pentecostals because there’s a variety of them!)

I have brought up a variety of reasons for the King James Bible and the Pure Cambridge Edition, which I have made from my perspective of history, doctrine, etc. These are to make sure there is consistency from my view, but there are specific points that I’ve made which are like passing facts but not that I major on.

While I believe that Pentecostalism is correct, my point is for people to have the King James Bible, and that’s the emphasis I’ve taken, which is evident in everything I’ve written. However, for obvious reasons Bryan Ross has concentrated on those areas (e.g. a comet), and it seems he is trying to make out things too far.

Now, since the Scripture is the basis for doctrine, from my point of view, I would want to see how the Scripture would relate to it, and specifically, being Pentecostal, I’d want to make sure that proper Pentecostal doctrines match the King James Bible.

To be clear, if the Bible itself is the basis of doctrine, and the PCE an “instance” of the Bible, then it has not been Pentecostal doctrine that made me select the PCE. If, in any way, Ross tries to say this, he would be completely wrong. I am actually arguing that if we start from the KJB, and a proper presentation of it, that we should align our doctrine to it. I have sought to understand right doctrine from a right presentation of Scripture.

The problem for Bryan Ross is that I don’t think he is starting from the KJB as the actual foundation to his doctrine. I suspect in some areas he is misinterpreting Scripture by applying certain beliefs onto Scripture, but I don’t want to talk about that, because that’s something that can be argued in general for a lot of Christians. Instead, I want to ask whether or not Bryan Ross is actually appealing ultimately to the KJB as its own authority as the basis of his doctrines, or whether he is really going to the original languages as his ultimate appeal. (That’s also an issue with his grammatical-historical interpretative method.)

So, it is only since the PCE that I have sought this idea of saying that pure doctrines are going to be built on having the pure word in practice. I did not arbitrarily select the PCE because it somehow was going to give me a biased outcome, I look to it on the basis of Providence, etc. The outcome is whether or not the Body of Christ can come to the KJB and to the PCE, and that we all build our doctrine on the same thing. I’m saying it is the work of God, if we judge doctrine by the PCE, we will see whether Pentecostalism, Trinitarianism, etc. is right. I think they are, but I think the issue now will be upon accepting the PCE as the basis, whether people will keep to the grammatical-historical interpretation method that is not even KJB-centric, or whether we actually have an English-scripture-exclusivity in our doctrine, and then interpret with one mind to have a unified body of Christ with correct doctrine.

My “real” belief is not merely about the PCE, but is about this verse:

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Eph. 4:13, 14).

Logically, if Christians have the same set of words, and interpret by the true Holy Ghost, then we will come to the unified Body of Christ.

I believe in moving towards that. And with ancillary doctrines being Wesley’s and Finney’s Christian Perfection, and Word of Faith’s controversial doctrine about being sons of God, then just how far could things go before the rapture?

It is a faith position because sight says, “people are squabbling about whether there even is a correct edition of the KJB” let alone the millions of other squabbles that a person might regard. I know what I am saying may seem very extreme now but I think it is a good extreme for us all: basically we have to ignore everything and believe Ephesians 4:13, 14.

“Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord’s servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.” (Isaiah 42:19–21).

SECTION TWO

In my original longwinded analytical approach on several editorial differences between the Pure Cambridge Edition and other editions, one of the fields of study I suggest is to measure editorial differences on doctrinal bases.

Now, remember, this is long after looking at the 1611 Edition, and at various historical editorial editions, like 1769, and the context, and so on. After all that, then to think about doctrinal implications of editorial differences.

In my draftings of my “Guide to the PCE”, I have an area (which being a draft is still subject to editing) which Bryan Ross quoted. It is where I make some comments about the lower case versus capital form of “Spirit” at Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12.

I acknowledge that area needs to be edited for clarity, but Bryan Ross is trying to make something more than what I am meaning.

First, that various older KJBs have the word “spirit” in lower case at Matthew 4:1 and/or Mark 1:12 when the parallel passage in Luke shows it is the Holy Ghost, meaning that we know it should be the “Spirit”.

Second, let me say that this has been perfectly legitimate historically as far as plenty of Christians using Bibles that have had that variation, but only when pressed on very exacting doctrinal grounds could we say that this is inaccurate. I do not think anyone has been seriously or doctrinally led astray because Bibles got it wrong back in the 18^th and 19^th centuries on this point.

Third, because of the potential to lead people astray, especially in context of the Pure Cambridge Edition being known and established, but in general, then obviously it would start to become problematic in a real sense to reject the “Spirit” capital rendering. Only upon insisting upon rejecting that the Holy Ghost actually is being meant would amount to blasphemy.

Rhetorically, one can ask the question, are you insisting on a lower case “spirit” at Matthew and Mark there to deny the Holy Ghost specifically? If so, such a motivation would lead into error or even blasphemy, surely. That is, as this issue becomes more aware, and people begin to take the printing of the KJB seriously, and editorially people refuse to conform to “Spirit” there, or start to argue and support “spirit” in Matthew and Mark there, then I think they would have to be pushing for something erroneous.

Further, if by accident, based on the historical times of wrong printings in some editions, people concluded that it meant something other than or against the Holy Ghost, I would think this a problem to be avoided by having a standard edition.

After all, both Cambridge in other editions and some Oxford editions themselves have moved to “Spirit” in Matthew and Mark, so obviously there has been a fair bit of agreement on this point. It is therefore not a singular opinion of mine, but it was such an issue that even other publishers have made the change before I was born!

So it’s pretty clear that Bryan Ross is making too much of the matter, though I can say that I hope to clarify the issue by finishing the draft one day, so as to better express the information, and also so that people like Bryan Ross don’t try to say that I am saying “spirit” historically was a specific blasphemy, when we know that variation has existed in how the word “spirit” or “Spirit” has been capitalised or not.

Bryan Ross is trying to peg me into a “verbatim identicality” corner for his own rhetorical interests, when I clearly have already explained that having the PURE text and translation of 1611 is a separate matter to having pure editing, orthography and printing/typesetting. Ross is unfairly conflating these matters.

So, Ross cannot be trusted to present my Pentecostal views quite fairly as he has a bias against those views, though he did have plenty of quotes from me, if when taken themselves, do indicate my views.

I do believe in a range of views outside of the usual label of “Pentecostal”. I personally can get along with people from a variety of denominations which might be usually “non-Pentecostal”. I think the KJB is for all Christians, and believe that there is a conformity to proper doctrine that would be happening only by God, because with man that would seem impossible.

Finally, I want to make it very clear that everyone who is born again has the Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of God. I’d like all believers to use the KJB, and specifically, to use the PCE.

Proper Pentecostalism teaches that beyond being born again is the invitation (really the command) that Christians should have a full baptism in the Holy Ghost which does have a specific evidence of speaking in tongues.

And you know, I could use an Oxford Edition to teach that. I could use an Oxford Edition the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, etc. So, I think Bryan Ross’ stretched conclusions need to be brought into check.

SECTION THREE

I want to continue to clarify some things so as to answer Ross’ critiques that have been raised regarding Pentecostal theology, doctrinal reasoning and the PCE.

First, to answer Ross’ claim that my acceptance of the PCE was driven by Pentecostal theology. This is not the case. My initial recognition of the PCE as a standard representation of the King James Bible came by Providential reasoning and historical examination, not from doctrinal presuppositions. The PCE existed for many decades before I was born, and its existence, editorial consistency and alignment with historical printings were primary factors in my evaluation. Sound theology is relevant only after this assessment, as a confirmatory lens, helping to understand how certain editorial readings — like “spirit” or “Spirit” — relate to broader Christian doctrine. Yes, my theology includes Pentecostalism, but it did not dictate my acceptance of the PCE.

Second, regarding doctrine’s role: yes, doctrinal reasoning functions normatively at decisive points, but always after historical, textual and providential analysis. For me personally, Pentecostal theology is a presupposed truth, but my concern is not to impose a theological outcome on the text. In fact, the opposite is the case. I have approached the PCE as dictating doctrine, and in a consequential way explored how the PCE naturally aligns with proper doctrine as a whole. (And, yes, I think there is proper Pentecostal doctrine as part of full proper doctrine.) My approach remains consistent: Providence and textual reality come first, doctrinal observations came second.

Third, about the finality of God’s words being manifested definitively: the authority and correctness of the PCE are both theologically and historically grounded. Theology provides the presuppositional lens of God’s providence, while history and the observable reality of PCE printings available to the early 2000s provide the factual substrate. This creates a self-authenticating standard: the PCE demonstrates internal consistency, historical continuity and practical usability in the Body of Christ. Authority to treat the PCE as final is exercised through discernment informed by these factors, not by a reproducible or mechanical method alone. The modern world and Enlightenment philosophy tend toward revision because of uniformitarian tendencies (all things continue as they have) which is something which the PCE’s stability and finality answers, based on a view that God is outworking to very specific ends.

In regards to the “Spirit/spirit” issues in Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:12, Acts 11:12, Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8, these cases illustrate how textual variation interacts with downstream doctrine. Historically, earlier editions quite often printed “spirit” in lowercase, and legitimate practice survives in many places where simplistic assumptions might demand “Spirit” capital. In places the “Spirit” capital was made, it was obviously for good reasons.

In fact, I think that the reasons for the 1769’s “spirit” at Matthew 4:1 to the modern day “Spirit” capital are entirely legitimate, and can easily be, by common sense, demonstrated on conference and doctrinal grounds. And to fight that change by strong resistance and so on would be a most grave error, because at some point it would become a blasphemous reason why it is being resisted I would think.

So, it would seem strange for Cambridge to, on no doctrinal or other good grounds, make the decision to make 1 John 5:8 “Spirit” capital when it has stood as “spirit” lower case since 1629 in normal Cambridge printings. Blayney had “spirit” too, and do many other sources. So then why was this suddenly an “embarrassment”? On what grounds exactly is it an embarrassment?

Weirdly, Bryan Ross, who basically tries to argue that there is only “verbal equivalence” yet hypocritically is ready to wave about an 1985 letter from Cambridge as some sort of victory … I though he was prepared to accept all normal editorial variations in his libertarian approach?

Yes, I say “normal” in a contemporary sense, but the are not all right.

Anyway, my investigation into these readings was first historical and textual, noting how older Cambridge and Oxford editions rendered the words. Only later, as a clarifying measure, did I explore what the doctrinal implications could be of these in different editions, and obviously my doctrinal reasoning includes a Pentecostal understanding. This demonstrates that textual reality is primary, and doctrinal interpretation comes as a secondary lens to confirm or clarify meaning, not to create the standard itself.

Accepting the standard is a doctrine in itself, not Pentecostal in a traditional sense, but a Fundamentalist, Providentialist and Puritan-derived.

And since my idea of the authority of theology flows from starting from the PCE as a standard, I can say that specific textual questions, such as “Spirit” versus “spirit,” were assessed first by historical and textual reality, and secondarily by doctrinal clarity, ensuring the PCE both reflects the historic text and aligns with proper theological understanding. I think a lot more theological study needs to be done, and it’s there for the entire Body of Christ to look at and study.

The PCE is not some textual curiosity but is a practical, providential and spiritually validated standard for the King James Bible in English, available to all believers, and a basis upon which Christians may rightly interpret doctrine and pursue unity.

And for the record, I did not have a checklist of Pentecostal doctrines and then check editions to make sure I could find a most confirmatory edition of all edition options.

I did not know in 2001 or 2002 that the 1769 Edition had “spirit” lower case at 1 John 5:8.

I really hope that the disagreement that Ross has with me is not my faith-based providential finality versus a historically open-ended textual stewardship position, because I know exactly where the modernists sit on that spectrum.

This article continues

In Part One of this article, I addressed the overarching problem of framing in Bryan Ross’ treatment of the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) position. I demonstrated that his critique relies heavily on selective quotation, the collapsing of necessary bibliological distinctions and the imposition of his own doctrinal and philosophical presuppositions onto my position. The result is not a neutral assessment of the PCE, but a reconstructed version of it. He has produced a false narrative that presents my view far flatter than I have ever claimed, making it seem ridiculously exclusivist.

In this second article, I will move beyond general framing issues and deal directly with several specific instances where Ross misunderstands, misrepresents or reverses what I have actually said. The aim here is not merely to correct errors, but to show in some detail that Ross’ objections consistently fail because they are aimed at a position I do not hold.

Pentecostalism

“On April 4, 2001, I then stated to the Elders of Victory Faith Centre a case in favour of this, which was when I fully recognised the correct edition. I then came to understand the meaning of the word ‘spirit’ with a lowercase ‘s’, and its connection to proper Pentecostal doctrine, namely, that the Spirit is to work in the human spirit (such as Christian sanctification and the impartation of knowledge), as well as His Pentecostal filling of it.”

In 2001, I was trying to understand things. This is the very beginning of it all.

I was coming from a position of having a wide margin Cambridge KJV Bible that probably would have been a PCE except it had a capital “Spirit” at 1 John 5:8. That was the issue at that time. I knew very little about editions, really nothing of Cambridge’s print history, at that time.

History has vindicated all of this, for example the sharing online of a letter from 1985 from Cambridge University Press which exposes their view that indeed the lower case “s” on “spirit” at 1 John 5:8 was their normal editorial text.

Norton’s book wasn’t even published yet in 2001. Yet, in such times of ignorance, careful study and aligning to Providence is what would show this step to be correct. I only had access to things like D’Oyly and Mant’s 1817 Folio (or maybe more Quarto).

Now, when I said about the understanding of “spirit” lower case in “connection to proper Pentecostal doctrine”, I am talking about the set of doctrines that a Christian who happens to be Pentecostal holds. You can see that by my reference to sanctification which is not an exclusive Pentecostal doctrine at all. That is what I was meaning. So the logic goes:

• Providential signs show “spirit”;

• I use a “Full Counsel of God” doctrinal approach which includes Pentecostalism and

• Make a logical, doctrinal and linguistic basic case for “spirit”

That was only to understand why or how it would be possible that the word “spirit” would be lower case. It is two logical steps: could it possibly correct and then why would it be correct?

It is not a statement of the actual meaning or doctrine of 1 John 5:8. I am not saying that anything I said was actually what 1 John 5:8 actually should be explicitly interpreted as. I am only talking about why the word “spirit” would appear in the KJB lowercase and what it might mean.

Now, remember this was a first look, my 2001 very initial thoughts about it. I did not even know fully how much all editions of the KJB had “spirit” in lower case in so many places throughout. (I was in fact using the primitive, analogue sources of an actual new Strongs Concordance in those days.)

So to say that “Pentecostalism” (doctrinally) guided me to say that 1 John 5:8 must have some special Pentecostal meaning, or that some sort of Pentecostal “experience” (like a vision or something) guided me to say that “spirit” must have a certain meaning would all be a wrong way of understanding what I said. Nothing like that really happened.

It’s a matter of recording what happened, for posterity. I did it all openly, there’s nothing being hidden. I am recording facts in the information I presented. It is a matter of historical reality that is what I stated in 2001 as recorded in 2013 as presented again here in 2026.

Ross misunderstands this by stating: “Interesting to note the stated reason he accepted the PCE as perfect because the lower case ‘s’ aligned with his Pentecostal theology, even though he vehemently rejects our stating that his position is founded on historicist interpretations of Revelation and Pentecostal theology.”

Historicist

Ross is further wrong by referring to “historicist interpretations”. Clearly I am Pentecostal and believe in Historicism, and as concerning the latter, I do point to a Historicist argument about Revelation 10 where it is pointing to the KJB, and where I use it to further point towards the PCE.

This is the same with the “purified seven times” view, it isn’t a central point, but it is a point. The issue is that Ross tries to make the Pentecostalism or the “purified seven times” parts bigger than what they are. Obviously Pentecostalism is in my thinking broadly as a Christian, and the pattern of Historicism and of “purified seven times” are part of a way of how I have understood the PCE’s place in history, but it’s not the most central tenet, it’s just a part of the view.

I can say I barely understood Historicism at that time, I’ve learned a lot more since. See this video to get a some Historicist information on Revelation 10.

Ross’ editorialising

Ross writes, “He did not say ‘I set out to study the history and doctrine and became convinced of this.’ Instead, he essentially said, ‘I became convinced of this by divine leading and Pentecostal doctrine then I set about to prove it and build a position.’”

Notice how Ross puts words into my mouth on the basis of his misinterpretation.

In fact, everything shows I was studying and looking at old Bibles. I was aligning to what could be seen in the providential signs pointing to why Cambridge was right with the KJB.

If there was any Pentecostalism, it was not like Ross imagines it. In Word of Faith doctrine we have the following:

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5).

Notice this is about finding the truth, through looking at Scripture and studying phenomena, as in, actual science and general practice.

I was, in fact, using Hills’ method of the Logic of Faith, and was giving close regard to to what Burgon had written. That’s how it was being looked at, that’s how I was seeing why the PCE was right.

That’s pretty much the opposite of what Ross falsely accuses me of. I was in fact building a position by studying Scripture, examining providences in usage and information. This is very difficult when there is little basis and little actual studies available in that field (as at 2001 to 2003).

This is my stand

Divorced from me, the PCE is indeed commendable to be a standard edition. However, the reality (as I suppose Ross is now recognising) is that I am connected to it in some way.

However, I can understand Ross bucking against it because his identity and emotional commitment is challenged.

Unfortunately also Bryan’s friend Nate has also been bucking about, so there is a challenge for him as well.

The thing is that Ross does do good work, I am sure that there are challenges running a church, and his desire to promote the legacy of William Tyndale is a good thing.

Yet, “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.” (Proverbs 18:19).

The wisdom of Gamaliel would be good for Ross to consider, “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38, 39).

Introduction

On the first Sunday in January 2026, Pastor Bryan Ross gave another presentation, number 272 in his series, on looking at the history of the King James Bible (KJB) text. (Which has a spelling mistake in the title, he turned “tenets” into “tenants”, a mistake I’ve also made in the past.)

In his presentation, he has attempted to present himself as neutral, historical, logical, etc., in his dealing with (i.e. against) a position that upholds one particular edition of the KJB as best, right and good.

Interestingly he has moved from dealing with an edition itself on its own merits, to the promotion of that edition and the character of its chief promoter, Matthew Verschuur of bibleprotector.com (the author of this response).

Ross is motivated against an exclusive use or upholding of a particular edition for various reasons.

His motivations have resulted in him being driven therefore to selectively marshal quotes, interpret writings and ignore or collapse distinctions held by Bible Protector in order to have rhetorical propagandist effect.

In this, we can show that Ross’ critiques are not fair, somewhat misframing ideas, misapplying an onus of correction for clarity onto Bible Protector (i.e. gaslighting me for being misinterpretable) and filtering comments through his own doctrinal, philosophical, etc. bias.

Basically, Ross is trying to make out that to hold a particular edition as “exclusive” is extreme, and that this ties into his personal problems with my other foundational views. I can understand how Ross would be uncomfortable with someone like me having different doctrinal views than him presenting something which, in its own self, is there for Ross.

By this, I mean that having a correct, standard and pure edition of the King James Bible is itself an end and a concept which could be adhered to, regardless of specifics of denominational affiliation.

I guess Ross should learn from the analogy of King James the First, who held vastly different doctrines and views to Ross, yet Ross can accept the Version made under his name. In fact, he holds to it quite strongly! Now, since the PCE already was edited in the early 1900s, surely Ross should be able to at least accept the concept of having a general terms-of-reference standard, to have an edition as a editorial representative in a definitive way of what is an accurately printed and orthographically exact presentation of the version/translation he uses.

Framing by selective quotation emphasis

Ross mines quotes from my materials, and then he asserts what he thinks those statements “must logically imply”.

Selective quotation can be accurate and still misleading. When he takes various short portions of what I wrote in my draft, he marshals them together in such a way so as to more reconstruct than analyse.

In doing so, Ross constructs a picture of the PCE position that is stricter, flatter and more exclusivist than what it actually is. (For example, when I say that specifically the PCE should be used as “the” Bible, I don’t mean to deny that the Scripture exists elsewhere, or that foreign translations are corrupt or that the Greek and Hebrew are evil.)

He is therefore engaging in contextual reframing in how he editorialises commentary on what I wrote, reading in and implying things I did not state.

The onus and misunderstanding early development

Ross went (selectively) through some of the background of how I was first looking into editions. Even though I had began from a place of uncertainty, I was using the logic of Edward Hills, Dean Burgon, Oliver Cromwell and Church history. The approach therefore was providentialist not Pentecostalist (which I am sure Ross also misunderstands, not knowing of the farflung spectrum of Pentecostal beliefs exceeding the spectrum of different Baptists).

Ross also tries to put the onus on me. He reads something I wrote and then tries to drive things beyond or even opposite of what I have said or meant. He then says that it is up to me to essentially rewrite something so that he doesn’t misinterpret it. That is completely uncharitably holding a person to ransom by essentially knowingly saying that they are meaning something they do not mean, and then saying that I would have to change my writings so he doesn’t misinterpret them.

Levels of purity: Ross’ central category error

The most consequential flaw in Ross’ critique is his refusal to engage in my multi-level framework of purity, despite clear evidence that Ross understands such distinctions exist. At the heart of a lot of Ross’ misunderstanding is a refusal to engage a layered bibliology, one that distinguishes where and how Scripture exists in purity in different levels. The PCE position is not a flat ontology in which Scripture can exist in only one form at one time. Rather, it recognises levels of purity and representation:

1. Scripture itself
   • In the mind of God — pure and perfect
   • In Heaven — pure and perfect
   • In the autographs — pure and perfect
   • In faithful copies and translations
2. Text/Version/Readings
   • The Textus Receptus tradition
   • Foreign and English Protestant translation versions
   • The King James Bible (1611) — pure and perfect
3. Translation
   • Protestant English translations from Tyndale through the KJB
   • The KJB itself — pure and perfect
4. Edition
   • Specific editorial forms (e.g., 1769, later Cambridge editions)
   • The Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) itself — pure and perfect
5. Setting
   • A particular, editorially stable instantiation of the PCE by having a text file with no typographical error — pure and perfect

Ross repeatedly collapses these levels into one flat category, then accuses the PCE position of denying or being made “more” Scripture than elsewhere. That conclusion only follows because Ross deliberately ignores the framework altogether, and he does so from his biased viewpoint rather than fair dealing.

Of course the PCE cannot be more pure than Scripture in Heaven or the autographs. Of course the PCE can be completely correct without denying or being against other levels of manifestations of Scripture.

It is completely unfair, like comparing apples and oranges, to mix the purity of an edition with the purity of a version. What needs to be understood is that a version needs a pure edition to represent it. The purity of a version is presented correct in an edition. Yet the concepts remain separate, dealing with a version in a textual critical way is entirely different to dealing with typesetting in a orthographic and copy-editorial way. These separate classes or levels of purity relate in both being able to be present in any copy of Scripture or not.

(Think about having a typographically correct ESV. That might be an accurately presented form of the ESV, but its Readings and Translation are still wrong. However, when we say the ESV, we would really want to be saying the typographically accurate form, because that is just common sense. It is not as if inaccurately printed copies are not the ESV.)

Purity as a continuum

Ross seems to insist that terms like “final purification” and “perfect” must mean something like as if this was the first time God’s Word was pure on earth, as though God’s Word was previously impure or unavailable. This is a category error.

Yet there are all kinds of I have said which contradict the way Ross tries to frame me, for example, I say that God’s Word is always pure in Heaven, Scripture was available and effective in the distant past.

The purified seven times in Earth (see Psalm 12) does not deny the purity that “just is” in Heaven. The purified seven times in Earth is most properly in a prophetic way can be seen in the English Bible version/translations. Is Tyndale actually impure Scripture? No. But is the KJB built upon it in a seven fold kind of way? Yes.

The finality of major editions of the KJB with the PCE is to do with editorial culmination, not to the first appearance of purity. To read it otherwise is to collapse editorial history into an ideological absolutism as if no one had the “really real” Scripture until now.

Also, just because the KJB has gone through many editions does not deny the specific important major iterations (folio editions) of editorial importance of the KJB. This means that specifically the 1611s, 1613, 1629, 1638 and 1769 are important milestones. But yes, a smaller Bible from 1612, or Scattergood or F. S. Parris and Thomas Paris’ work is not without contribution. Doubtless Ross might try to make some sort of anti-Newtonian Indigo argument.

Ross knows a lot of what I have said and explained, yet he persists with his narrative, claiming that I will produce materials complaining about him. He anticipates this because he knows he is doing things that deserve censure.

Ross should be careful about becoming another Justin Peters, and also consider about the danger of fighting divine providence.

Doctrine, language and bias

Ross’ critique is not doctrinally neutral. His resistance to the PCE position is shaped by identifiable commitments:

• Mid-Acts Dispensationalism (and Pauline emphasis)
• Cessationism and anti-Pentecostalism
• A specific and restrictive Historical-grammatical hermeneutic
• A low view of providential editorial history
• A philosophy of language that resists letter-level theological significance
• Opposition to forms of authoritarianism and absolutism

Underlying much of Ross’ opposition is a philosophy of language that resists precision. If spelling, capitalisation and punctuation are assumed to be conceptually indifferent, then any claim to letter-level exactness will appear unnecessary or even dangerous.

Ross seems to think that doctrine, meaning or sense is not affected by the small parts of language.

I affirm that doctrinal nuance, conceptual association and sense are communicated by construction, syntax, vocabulary and that words and grammar form are important, meaning that there is significance tied to spelling, capitalisation and punctuation.

Legality requires precision of language. Christianity itself, and the nature of God, is doctrinal and describable. Language is a necessity, and precision thereof an absolute requirement. Ross rejects this premise a priori, then criticises the conclusions that follow from it.

“Glistering Truths” and Relative Precision

Ross seems to portray as if I am claiming that correct doctrine only exists in the PCE. This is wrong. Correct doctrine is communicated in all levels or layers of what Scripture is, but obviously text and translation do affect the understanding of it.

So if we were to compare an Oxford or a Cambridge KJB, obviously there is going to be no difference on Creation, Sin, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Rapture, etc. The claim is not that the PCE uniquely teaches the Trinity or the deity of Christ.

In fact, even on very small points of meaning, the differences between a Cambridge and an Oxford are very tiny. Yet, at every last whit, at every last detail, on just a word or letter here or there, there is still something very small. It is a matter of having exactly the very words of God. There are conceptual accuracies in even the minor details.

Ross should understand that the PCE view is the maximal editorial precision that best preserves every nuance of doctrine, meaning, sense and conceptual precision.

The difference is one of degree. The PCE therefore is by design a preservation of doctrine with the greatest editorial fidelity.

Let’s be honest, but even a loose paraphrase may contain Scripture where it aligns with the highest standards. Modern versions are not always wrong, but we can recognise when they are right. Their foundational nature being of the spirit of modernist Infidelity is the reason we should reject them as a whole, but yet we can detect truth within them because we have a known standard of truth to measure by.

And on the editions question, it was, after all, the 1629, 1638, 1769, etc. which had “spirit” lower case in 1 John 5:8, so this should not be lightly rejected today. Some would do so on fairly whimsical grounds like their “feelings”. In fact, that is like a “Pentecostal” response in this present time of general Christian ignorance. But someone saying that the early Barker printings and now a Cambridge letter from 1985 are of greater authority, this would be a mistake. Why are Bible editors of the past hundreds of years all to be rejected because Cambridge University Press, in a time of their own obvious ignorance, said that they were embarrassed about 1 John 5:8?

Key criteria

In relation to the list of key criteria of 12 passages identifying the PCE, Ross has misunderstood, because it is possible to construct a complete and definitive list of differences between the PCE and the Oxford 1769 Folio, or between the PCE and the Concord or the PCE and an Oxford printing of the 20^th century.

That list of key criteria is just a checklist to discern the PCE, not definitively but sufficiently, and further, that list has become the way to define a PCE or not.

Ross asks, “How does Verschuur know this list is complete?” Answer: It is a definitive list to discern a PCE, it is not all the differences or checks for all editions as far as every single reading difference.

Ross asks, “Could there be other changes that could be significant according to his argument?” Answer: These aren’t necessarily all significant or even the most significant, they are just indicative places, which would be usual to find some levels of differences between Thomas Nelsons, Americanised Editions, Oxfords, Zondervan, etc.

Ross asks, “How can one be sure?” Answer: Sure that an edition is the PCE? The PCE has been published by Cambridge etc. since at least 1911 if not earlier and printings of the PCE, including from other publishers printing the PCE, show conformity to a particular editorial text, e.g. that will have “Geba” at Ezra 2:26. So it is empirically and objectively known, this is not a “Verschuur” claim, this is an objective reality that everyone can observe, e.g. David Norton observed the 20^th century/current text.

Therefore, the list is diagnostic not exhaustive.

Phenomena and Providence

Ross takes a mocking tone towards a few (passing) references to earthquakes, comets and historical events as if they are essential proof claims.

I am noting these historical facts as phenomena not as a basis of truth. It is normal to do this in recording history to help contextualise the time frame. But things do have meaning, of course, we live in a universe ruled by the Most High who is an interventionist Being.

After all, there is a lot to show how Kepler’s Star is associated with the inception of the King James Bible. Since God is in control of history, and there are convergencies between “signs and wonders” of Genesis 1 (for example) and God’s outworking in history, this is because God’s will really is done and because the Most High really does rule.

Ross’ labouring of the issue trying to insinuate or create sensationalism is a rhetorical distraction.

Public Articulation vs. Historical Reality

Ross seems to be implying that because the PCE position was publicly articulated only from 2007, it may lack legitimacy.

This confuses recognition with existence.

• The PCE text existed decades earlier
• Cambridge printings demonstrate editorial stability
• Public articulation itself does not create, it identifies

By this logic, many doctrines would be invalid until first formally systematised. I imagine people turning down Nicaean doctrines in 326 because they were a year old, or someone rejecting the KJB in 1612 because it was a year old.

Recent expression does not imply novelty of substance.

This article continues

In Part Two of this article, I’m going to show explicitly Bryan Ross misunderstanding me.

I’ve made a assessment of Bryan Ross’ assessment of my position. In two long videos, part 1 and part 2.

Logic versus logic, interpretation versus interpretation.

Introduction

Another article has appeared from Bryan Ross. It is an article about logic, but it is really a conflict about Bible interpretation.

Bryan Ross is still at it, trying to reject the idea of having a precisely accurate edition today and deferring instead to alleged precise accuracy of the originals — of which no perfect copy is extant.

In a calamitous blunder, Bryan Ross has sided with the modernists against the King James Bible by insisting that the authority is with the “Hebrew and Greek”, and that its “doctrinal weight” outweighs the English.

In order to show the magnitude of Ross’ error, a reader simply has to apply what he is saying against the King James Bible itself. In so desperately trying to argue against there being a correct edition with correct wording, he has also had to sacrifice the KJB’s exact text and its exact translation, while he goes with the modernists to the temple of Hellas. Are we now to parley at Mars Hill instead of preaching to the world in the global language? Are we to jettison the greatest Christian revivals of the past 508 years for the superstitious deference of modernism? For, we all know that no one has an immaculately, jot and tittle, pure and perfect exact copy of the Bible in Greek or Hebrew. Half the time they can’t even get the order of the Bible Books right!

Is Bryan Ross so petty that he will say, No! It’s not half the time! Verschuur made an error in his statistics!?

Authority

Our authority in matters of doctrine and theology should not primarily be logic. Logic is not higher than truth. Our authority should be truth itself, and logic is but a servant of truth. Logic is just one of the things that is a part of the use of knowledge.

It is telling that Ross, as doubtless compelled by his friend Nate Kooienga, is more interested in trying to use logic as a polemical device than a proper hermeneutical approach.

I think they know what I am saying makes sense, but they must go to lengths to try to reject it.

My point

What happened was I mentioned a place where the Bible is accurate to the letter in English showing a principle about the difference between a letter changing a plural, which the Apostle Paul mentioned in Galatians 3:16.

I mentioned it rather casually in passing, but in fact there is a lot more that we can show from the Bible, for example: “Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right.” (Judges 12:6a). Notice the changing of a letter, the changing of the sound, is actually shown to us in the Bible that one is “right”, meaning the other is less right.

Again, “all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word” (Jer. 26:2b).

Remember, Bryan Ross does not believe Matthew 5:18 is speaking about the very makeup of the words of Scripture being entirely reliable, he is instead focused on the message of the Bible only. Thus, he can meander about on spellings and wordings, for he is not anchored in the precision of communication that comes from using precise grammar, spelling and punctuation. He is fine with fluid orthography because he doesn’t detect or seem to want to detect preciseness of meanings like fractals in every word in a letter perfect way.

Bryan Ross the hermeneutics police officer

Bryan Ross is trying to quibble about how apparently Galatians 3:16 cannot be used to demonstrate that God knows and cares about letters in the Bible.

His logic can be summarised as follows:

• Paul was writing in Greek about a Christological doctrine from Hebrew;

• Verschuur is writing in English about a Bibliological doctrine from an English translation; so

• Verschuur’s use of the principle of what Paul indicates, even thought it is in Scripture and deals with Scripture words, is a “non sequitur” because Ross’ hermeneutics don’t allow Verschuur to use Paul’s words in English in an applicative way to support having letter-accuracy in an edition of the English Bible.

What Ross is doing in a silly way here is trying to divorce the Hebrew, Greek and Paul from the King James Bible, its editions and me.

But we are all part of one continuum. There is a direct connect between inspiration and today. I trust I am not in bad company if I am with the Apostle Paul. And if I actually believe God wants us to have every word that proceeds out of His mouth!

Word differences are not spelling differences

Ross keeps saying, “Spelling differences such as alway versus always or stablish versus establish do not affect grammatical number or meaning and therefore carry no doctrinal weight.”

Except, “alway” and “always” are two different words, with different (though similar) meanings. “Stablish” and “establish” are different too. Now even if it was just in nuance, even if just in subtle shading, they are communicating something slightly different.

Doctrinal accuracy demands word accuracy. If we want to have the exact communication of God, and know exactly what He means, we cannot just have haphazard and random word and spelling selections.

Plummeting logic

My whole argument is about the precision of Scripture, and having an exact edition allows us intricate knowledge of that.

Ross makes a very bad argument against me when he tries to say that because all KJB editions have the same message at Galatians 3:16, in relation to the matter of the singular and plural “seed” and “seeds”, that somehow this cannot apply as an argument to the PCE.

This is the most atrocious “logic” I have seen for a long time. He’s literally saying that unless the PCE is different at this place, then whatever is being said doesn’t apply to the PCE.

Let’s use his logic against him. For example, here’s an absurd argument: Paul wasn’t writing English so why is Bryan Ross quoting Galatians to me in the KJB? He can’t use English because Paul was writing in Greek about Hebrew, so I (facetiously) INSIST that Bryan Ross give me the argument in Greek.

Doesn’t that mean that Bryan Ross is making a “category error”? Whoops.

Ross accidentally admits something

Ross says, “But in reality, variations like stablish vs. establish or punctuation shifts do not alter doctrine in the same way.”

So, me using logic here, that means that “stablish” to “establish” or punctuation does effect doctrine in just a minor, microscopic way?

That’s exactly what I am saying. I’m not saying that there’s going to be big ticket doctrinal matters like the Christological argument at Galatians 3:16. I am saying there is perhaps only the tiny molecule of difference, of some minor doctrinal impact.

And that’s the point: the tiniest hairsbreadth of meaning difference is a meaning difference!

Amen Brother Ross, you do really know that those differences of words are really different words with different meanings: “throughly”, “ensample”, “alway”, “stablish” and the rest the words like “astonied” and so on must all retain their rightful place.

Because every jot and tittle actually does matter. Meaning matters. And meaning builds ideas, ideas which form parts of doctrines.

Answering Ross’ faulty reasoning and misguided deference to the originals

Ross writes, “Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16 demonstrates the theological significance of singular versus plural forms in the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts, not in English orthographic variations.”

Sorry, but Paul was not expressly writing with a view to talk about Hebrew and Greek, God was not limiting what Paul said to be something to do with that even. He was just talking about the plural and the singular. It was about Christ, and he made a point about precision in language to show us about Christ. God communicated to us about this, so we cannot and should not artificially say that Paul was somehow writing about Hebrew and Greek. He doesn’t even mention those words.

So the principle of plurals as communicated by letters is entirely valid for us to understand, and to use it as a point to show why we should have an accurate English edition is proper.

I mean, we are reading the word “seed” and “seeds” literally in English right, and in order to communicate that, we would want an accurately printed English Bible, right? That is right.

Ross then says, “While fidelity to the original languages is essential for doctrinal accuracy, spelling and punctuation differences among King James Bible editions do not alter meaning or theology.”

This is truly a dangerous statement. Ross is basically saying that the authority for theology is in the original languages, and not in the fact that we have English representing the originals.

Has he not read these verses?

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).

“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).

Doesn’t he know that there was a Reformation so now we can know doctrine in our own tongue?

Now he is committing himself there to actual error because he categorically states, “spelling and punctuation differences among King James Bible editions do not alter meaning”.

So, he is saying that if you have an edition that has Peter’s speech “betraying” him instead of “bewraying” him, that that’s not a meaning change? Or that deliberately insisting on having “Spirit” not “spirit” at 1 John 5:8 today (as opposed to the haphazard nature of early printings) is not a meaning difference?

The editorial staff at Cambridge who ignorantly changed this verse in 1985 did so because they called it an embarrassment. They really thought it was a meaning difference, an error. If they didn’t think that way, why were they (wrongly) embarrassed?

Surely this is directly an issue of theology! And yet Ross blunderingly stumbles along claiming “spelling and punctuation differences among King James Bible editions do not alter meaning or theology.”

I guess Robert Barker went to jail for nothing for printing the Adulterer’s Bible. I guess the Parliamentary inquiry in the 1830s and those at other times was for nought. I guess the British Government was wrong, as well as the Guardian Presses of the United Kingdom, in wanting accuracy of King James Bible printing.

Surely they recognised that meaning and theology could be affected with press errors and poor editorial decisions!

Ross concludes, “doctrinal precision depends on the integrity of the preserved original-language text and faithful translation—not on the exclusivity of one English edition”.

Doesn’t he understand that a translation has to be printed? Are people free just to print badly and introduce accidental word changes, and that doesn’t matter? Are people free to get rid of proper distinct words with their distinct meanings, and there is no consequence?

We are dealing with the Word of God here, I strongly recommend great fear at such an undertaking as to be sure to be presenting the Scripture with absolute fidelity in our English settings, presswork and publishing.

Doesn’t Ross understand that what we have today is long passed beyond the original languages, that we have now a faithful representation in English? It seems that he harbours a secret deference to the original languages, and even does his teaching by not relying upon the King James Bible itself, but all this nonsense about sperma and toldot and other such non sequitur.

Ross makes a really big mistake

Ross writes, “By conflating inspired textual distinctions with editorial refinements, Verschuur commits a category error that undermines the logical foundation of his position.”

Notice how Ross divorces the inspired text from the printed King James Bible.

Notice how Ross indicates that inspiration is not communicated by the mechanism of editorial exactness in English.

Notice how Ross implies that placing the inspiration of Scripture in the hands of God but editing apparently is just a human undertaking, that God apparently has no direct care for the transmission of the inspired words through the method of editing and medium of printing/publishing.

Notice how Ross upholds the accuracy of the originals but expresses no care for what the end user actually has at hand today.

By MATTHEW VERSCHUUR, author of Glistering Truths.

OVERVIEW

I was unaware, until late November 2025, that Bryan Ross had written a book in 2017 which contains a number of attacks and misrepresentations of my position.

His booklet, “The King James Bible in America”, is designed to be an attack on the idea of there being a pure edition of the King James Bible (KJB), and an attack on the idea that we can have the KJB letter perfect.

One can only conclude that Pastor Ross, who does make some good and interesting points in some of what he talks about, is misunderstanding or else being intellectually dishonest on these issues.

I suspect he is so wrong on this topic because he has a flawed interpretation methodology (i.e. some influence of modernist hermeneutics, such as in how he reads Matthew 5:18), and because he is not approaching divine providence in history as interventionist but rather merely examining things with some degree of Enlightenment reasoning (e.g. variations are observable therefore there is not final perfection) and most especially because he is not adhering to a worldview that says that manifestation on Earth is to reflect perfection in Heaven (thereby denying a perfect knowledge of fixed words of God on Earth as being able to match a heavenly prototype).

Bryan Ross wants to argue that “alway” and “always”, “stablish” and “establish”, “ensample” and “example” and “throughly” and “thoroughly” are not distinct, deliberate words, with some element of specific meaning that makes them unique to their counterpart similar wordform.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that these words can be quite similar, in appearance and in usage, but there is still something specific, distinct and particular about them. We cannot just broadbrush and replace all instances of one word with another. They are not just merely variant spellings, archaic forms or variations of orthography of no consequence. The fact that these words have been listed distinctly in dictionaries, and were not edited to be replaced by Dr Blayney (1769) or in the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) shows that indeed there is every reason to retain them.

Pastor Ross can argue that some words might come from the same etymological root word, or that at times historically usage appeared somewhat interchangeable, but I think this does not counter the peculiar “glistering truth” nature of these words. I suggest that there may be other reasons why there was some looseness, and am inclined to hypothesise that less educated compositors and especially American printers have been less exact. We see how much a spirit of wanting to change the King James Bible has manifested in America, including the stupendous amount of changes made by the American Bible Society and also in more recent editions, which thankfully propriety, market forces and diligent Christians have rejected.

I wonder whether Pastor Ross is arguing that God cannot, will not or has not provided the King James Bible with distinctions, even shades of meaning, in accurate printing. I cannot understand how Pastor Ross would be siding against accuracy, exactness, fixedness or certainty to allow the ideas of those who wish to modernise, simplify and deny precision.

I will now give a survey of some of the issues in his book.

MIXED DEFINITIONS

On page 1, Pastor Ross begins with a false accusation against my view that I claim that “modern printings of the KJB, do not possess the ‘pure word of God’”, and that believers “need to purchase a copy of the King James text which is devoid of these changes in order to possess an uncorrupted copy of God’s word in English.”

This accusation is wrong because he is (deliberately) confounding the purity or perfection of a version or a translation with the totally separate idea of the correctness of editing or of printing. These are entirely separate concepts. Version is not translation, and editing and printing are their own things.

As such, if I say that the King James Bible is the Word of God in English, then I cannot be denying the KJB’s version-readings and its translation. I must be accepting that version and translation even if it was printed by Clarendon at Oxford.

On one side, I think that the Word of God is best presented in a typographically accurate form of the KJB, on the other hand, I accept the Scripture as being true, such as when Paul wrote it, before English even existed.

PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH

On page 7, Pastor Ross says that we assert that, “‘throughly’ was of entirely different meaning than ‘thoroughly’.” This is incorrect. That word “entirely” is his embellishment. In fact, I could be prepared to concede that in some cases the different meanings are so close, as to constitute a 99% similarity. But they are, I am sure, still different.

He goes on to discuss me and my book, Glistering Truths. (Note that over the years I have done some minor work on this book, not to change its central thesis, but just normal editing.)

Bryan Ross wants to reject my idea that every letter in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible is exactly correct. He says, “Brother Verschuur maintains implicitly if not explicitly that any Bible that changes the spelling of ‘always’ to ‘always’ or ‘ensample’ to ‘example’ is a ‘corrupted’ Bible and not capable of expressing the exact sense of scripture. So unless one possesses a particular printing (circa 1900) from a particular press (Cambridge University Press) they do not possess the pure word of God, according to Bible Protector.”

This is false and absurd. This is not my position at all. It almost seems as if Pastor Ross is deliberately misrepresenting, for he is certainly mistaking, my position.

The King James Bible has both a correct, pure and perfect version/text/readings and translation. The King James Bible has gone through many valid historical editions, which exhibit both printing mistakes and editing. I certainly do not call such editions as “corrupted”. While obviously a printing mistake is not right, by implication “impure”, I am not attributing some moral evil to this, which is what detractors to my position are falsely accusing me of.

(I could illustrate it as having a shirt with a loose thread or a tiny hole in it. It’s my preference for absolutely correct typesetting, like you would rather not wear a shirt with a tiny food splotch on it.)

We all know that editing has happened and that there have been some adjustments in orthography, but such things have been within the parameters of the normal, natural printing and presswork of the history of the King James Bible, and to correct and to standardise spelling and grammar have all been commendable trends.

Since I know that the Word of God was there in the writings of Paul, or in Latin, or in foreign Reformation translations, or in old Protestant English Bible translations, I must steadfastly refuse Pastor Ross’ blatantly false accusation that I am saying that if it is not Pure Cambridge Edition, it is not the Word of God.

The problem arises with modern publishers who want to (despite whatever historical precedents) bring out new Americanised KJB editions — and the problem is not restricted to them, because David Norton also brought out a very modernised edition with all kinds of modernised changes in spelling and grammatical forms — and this is inherently a bad thing. It is changes by stealth, it is an undermining of the idea that we have a tradition which reflects the work of divine providence.

WRONG CRITERIA

On page 12, he writes, “Bible Protector makes no mention of the fact that the same Greek word translated ‘always’ in John 12:8 is elsewhere rendered ‘ever’ six times, ‘always’ five times, and ‘evermore’ two times by the King James Translators. Please also note that no English language resource is given to substantiate the difference between the two words. One is simply asked to take Brother Verschuur’s word for it. ‘Always’ and ‘always’ appear to be another distinction without a difference.”

The first and by far biggest problem here is that Bryan Ross is not judging English, but is imposing from (his view of) the Greek onto English. This is a massive fault, because he is essentially denying the providential distinction in English by the authority of himself or modern scholarship or some external misapplied standard of the so-called Greek.

Pastor Ross also claims that I have given no source for why I stated in my monograph that “alway” is different to “always”. However, here is the basic fact: my monograph is not a deep academic work, but one which is only superficial in nature, inviting much further study. In it I don’t have an extensive bibliography, extensive footnotes or careful examination of various historical dictionaries or lexical sources. I fully expect that lots more study should be done.

However, I am confident, even in my “infant” study, that to approach the Bible, in the providential perspective of what Blayney (1769) and the PCE present, in the distinction of words like “alway” versus “always”, is because there really is some meaning difference. I am sure that further studies will only vindicate this on a much more comprehensive level.

Bryan Ross is asking us to take his word for it that I expect the reader to take my word for it. My view is that as people look into these matters, and if people like Ross’ friend Nathan Kooienga do, if they are going to be honest, I expect based on just a simple faith approach, that “alway” and “always” do have peculiarity, and could not just arbitrarily be made to be just one word only. We know that a modernist approach would do tend to do so, and that they would probably just have “always” at every instance. Either Bryan Ross is dipping is toes into modernistic thinking or at least he is giving them comfort with their way of looking at KJB editing.

ACADEMIC SNOBBERY

On page 19, Pastor Ross says, “Much has been made by King James Bible Believers of the alleged difference between the English words ‘ensample’ and ‘example.’ … Bible Protector, Matthew Verschuur maintains that there is a difference in meaning between these two words … Once again, please note that Brother Verschuur does not reference any English language reference book to support these statements.”

This is slightly laughable in that there are several ways in which to detect a difference, which should be taken in concert, being: King James Bible usage, proper dictionaries and etymological observation.

I also stress that the King James Bible itself is superior to any dictionary.

So my simple examination of the matter could well be a first step, regardless of whether I somehow referenced the Oxford English Dictionary or not. (W. A. Wright’s Bible Word Book is also a source which I note Ross does not mention at all in his work.)

Now, the fact may be that Ross has looked at a bunch of old dictionaries. Generally, I may have looked at the OED, Johnston and Wright’s book. I can even admit sometimes I didn’t look at them that much. Why? Because my monograph is the proposing of an idea rather than the rigorous testing of it. I am inviting such rigorous testing from a believing perspective! And because I started from believing what the Bible actually has, i.e. the word “ensample” being different to “example”, I was able to suggest, even just by observable etymology, that “en-” differs to “ex-”, one being inside (taking it to heart) and one being outside (a pattern to conform to).

I don’t mean that my “off the cuff” definitions I have just given are to be treated as the absolute full definition, but I think that this is far in the right direction, and God is working to clarify these things, because it is His will for us to understand.

Perhaps this is more to the point another issue, about the advancement in knowledge of Christianity. I actually believe God wants us to know and that we can know. Proverbs 1:5, 6 is about us attaining the needful, perhaps hithertofore hidden, knowledge. I see it in many places, including 1 Corinthians chapter 2, etc.

If Pastor Ross wants to cast doubt because I didn’t cite a dictionary, I will counter far more simply that I am starting from believing what has been providentially supplied to us in Blayney and more especially the PCE.

Let me add that despite the variations that appeared from American presses “accidentally”, and worse, deliberately in the middle of the 19^th century, and again deliberately from World publishers over two decades ago (after they had printed the PCE when they were aligned with Collins), I will note the irony, that is, providence, that has Ross and his Scofield-loving friends using copies which do get these words like “stablish”, “alway”, “ensample” and “throughly” correct.

STUDYING IT OUT

Bryan Ross goes to some length to attempt to discredit the idea that “example” and “ensample” have distinctions in meaning. Yet, upon reading the King James Bible, the distinction is apparent and applicable at every place.

If I am proposing a hypothesis, and it works, it is a theory. And as a theory, we should be able to get to (by collaboration and proper believing study) a fact.

We will not, as Pastor Ross wrongly does, try to use the Greek to change the English meaning. Instead, we can look at 1 Corinthians 10, and see whether the distinctiveness between “en-” and “ex-” holds ground.

In verse 6, we see that the happenings to Israel in the wilderness are examples, which means patterns to conform to, of things which are an external warning to us, by example. It is not of the nature of a born again Christian to lust, though one might submit to the alien invasion of lust, but the warning is clear. We cannot “internalise” the punishment against lusters because Christ in us is not a luster. Therefore, we look AT the Old Testament, and treat the stories of the Israelites of old as examples.

But then, in verse 11, we are told that the things that happened to Israel are for our teaching, our learning, and therefore, we do internalise knowledge, we are admonished, we take it to heart, they are ensamples!

We are told not to do as the Israelites did wrong, as though we could, and therefore we internalise the admonition, it is the result of learning we received from understanding the teaching of the Scripture.

I can only suggest that Bryan Ross is deliberately trying not to see or discern the difference between “example” and “ensample” in 1 Corinthians 10.

DICTIONARY POWER

Then, on page 22, Pastor Ross goes on to criticise the distinction between “stablish” and “establish”, which can be shown from the Oxford English Dictionary.

The problem that Bryan Ross has is how he selectively interprets the OED to try to make it have “stablish” and “establish” as interchangeable or the same thing. He writes on page 31, “It is obvious that the supposed difference in meaning does not arise from the words themselves since the OED indicates the words are equivalents. What is evidently occurring is that each zealous defender of the KJB has pre-decided that ‘stablish’ and ‘establish’ have different meanings. Since neither the OED nor other dictionaries support such a distinction, each KJB defender has had to manufacture a supposed difference in meaning which does not exist. Thus, one observes that they invent different meanings. The fact that they invent different meanings is proof the supposed distinction between stablish and establish is not real, but contrived.”

In fact, Bryan Ross has started out with the assumption that the words are really just the same, and interpreted the dictionary according to his bias. (There would be common roots in the etymology.) But instead of seeing a difference, Pastor Ross wants to make it interchangeable. He does so, not on the basis of proper merit, but on his assertion that people are apparently making up meanings and that some people had different meanings. (This is like saying because someone was wrong, therefore my view is right.)

Ross wants to take the smudging road that differences are really just the same thing. (Sounds like the same argument NKJV supporters use when saying that they accept both the NKJV and the KJV… but then always say something is wrong in the KJV. In this case, Ross is saying, by implication, something is wrong with having “stablish” when he thinks it really just is “establish”).

Ross claims, “A host of English language resources stretching all the way back to early 17th century, when the translation work on the KJB was being conducted, report that the words are equivalent in meaning.”

That is a mistaken thought. First, because the words are listed separately. And second, because at least some dictionaries, good ones, identify something different about each word.

Here’s a quote from the OED which shows that the words were not merely synonyms: “From the 16th c. there seems to have been a tendency to confine the use of the form stablish to the uses in which the relation of meaning to stable adj. Is apparent, i.e. where the notion is rather ‘to strengthen or support (something existing)’ than ‘to found or set up’. The modern currency of the word is pure literary, and reminiscent of the Bible or Prayer Book.”

The point here is not whether the OED is right, but it is touching on the important point that there already existed in the minds of people centuries ago a difference.

The 1604 Table Alphabetical shows that stablished means “sure, confirmed, one made strong”, while establish means, “confirm, make strong”. In this case, this work does not give identical definitions, though obviously there is a lot of crossover. I’m not suggesting that we should use some work by one man designed for ladies, to define religious and Bible words as being used by KJB translators, but it does give us valid insight as far as it goes. The point here is that the definitions are NOT strictly synonymous, and also they contradict the reporting in the more thorough OED. Yet all agree on separate lexical entries.

As to the point that I might be starting out with my own view of a difference, and inventing my own arbitrary definitions, I think we have already seen too much from the dictionaries to prove otherwise. Furthermore, I didn’t approach the Bible imposing my view upon it, I found two different words, and wondered why. I didn’t just assume (as apparently Pastor Ross wants us to) that the words are just the same. I followed the hint from Dean Burgon, that every distinct word is distinctly different, that every distinct word is exactly correct at its place. I then humbly began to learn why it was so, without just denying or trying to explain away the difference.

(Bryan Ross saw all these differences in 19th century American Bibles, and seems to have concluded quite wrongly that there was no hand of God in these matters altogether. He has pushed very hard to make a case against there being an editorial standard, skirting far too closely toward the thinking of David Norton.)

DISTINCTION VERSUS AMERICAN FUZZINESS

On page 32, Pastor Ross writes, “Not only will this problem not go away for the standard editions of the KJB between 1611 and 1769; but … the problem is compounded when one considers the printed history of the KJB in the United States. As early as 1792, nearly one hundred years before the publication of the Revised Version (1881), American Bible publishers were already ‘Americanizing’ the spelling of words in King James Bibles printed in the United States. If one is going to persist in the belief that KJBs exhibiting these spelling changes are ‘corruptions’ then they must also conclude that generations of unwitting American Christians who used these Bibles did not possess the pure word of God.”

We know full well that there were orthographic, spelling and grammatical works taking place in editions of the King James Bible from 1611 to 1769, especially in 1769. We know that in America, it obviously went a bit haywire doing this.

It’s not a “problem” if we know that the issue has been resolved. It’s not a “problem” if we know that the 1769 Edition and the Cambridge tradition leading to the Pure Cambridge Edition kept in place a proper usage of these various word forms.

It’s not a problem that if we examine closely the usage, in the editorial form we have now, that we can see how “ensample” differs to “example”.

Was the distinction between these two words clear in 1611? I think so, but I also think that the conceptual clarity, especially as we see through other kinds of examples of grammatical standardisation, really becomes a notable phenomenon more and more in time.

We could find some case where people, even the translators, had written the word in the other form. That’s true of any of the kinds of editing Blayney did, even where “you” or “ye” have been changed somewhere. This is no problem.

We can fairly assert that the translators’ intention was to communicate the ideas as we are now able to discern them, through acknowledging distinctness. Of course, we can certainly argue in a retrospective sense that since we have these distinctions fixed and known, thanks to Blayney and the PCE, that we have knowledge of God’s providentially intended distinctness in words.

REALLY PUSHING AGAINST THE GOADS

Pastor Ross dials up the rhetoric, asking on page 61, “Do we really want to say that generations of American Christians possessed ‘corrupt’ King James Bibles because they did not come from an Oxford or Cambridge University Press? Is it our position that in order to possess the ‘pure word of God’ in English one must possess a particular printing, from a particular press, produced on a particular continent?”

This is an absurd set of questions, because we know the King James Bible is good, regardless of the “disparity” or “interference” or “lack of precision” in American printings. I have a London BFBS printing from about 1806 or so, and it is fraught with bad typography. Bad typography or historical looseness in American editions do not invalidate the Scripture, but they are issues thankfully that people today can address and have the answer to, being accurately printed editions.

The Cambridge press has traditionally been the best, and people should read my books on the subject from my website to see how good Cambridge has been. However, Cambridge has also made mistakes and done the wrong thing. The Revised Version was wrong. The Concord Edition was not a good step. And changing the PCE in places as has been done silently (e.g. at Acts 11:12) has been a bad thing. But I am not saying that KJBs which spell “Hemath” as “Hammath” must be cast into the fire. Ironically, there are plenty of Pure Cambridge Edition copies that have made this change, and yet I myself have used them. Of course, it should be “Hemath” at 1 Chronicles 2:55, and thankfully we have been able to resolve even these questions. Therefore, if someone is using a 1917 Scofield Bible, except if he was doing it out of rebellion, they still have the KJB. I am rather just encouraging conformity to the PCE in a positive sense.

I suspect that Bryan Ross does not like that which God’s providence has favoured and wishes for a libertarian approach, which might just allow him to fashion something else. For why is it that he has to react so strongly to the set and particular orthography, spelling and grammar of Dr Blayney and the PCE? Is he really just moved against the PCE, is he really just motivated to reject it?

THE REALITY

The distinctions of “throughly,” “ensample,” “stablish” and “alway” existed pre-1769. Dr Blayney and the PCE preserved and standardised these distinctions rather than inventing them. The retention of these, largely stable from 1611, and certainly stable from 1769, shows editorial recognition of meaningful distinctions.

The work of the editors was not arbitrary. Orthographic choices were meaningful, reflecting nuance, register or function. Editors did not standardise or erase “stablish” or “ensample” or the rest because they understood they were functionally distinct.

Early lexicons and glossaries are not technical, and therefore should not be over-invested with authority. Johnston and particularly the OED are about usage patterns and the record of usage, and from this, we can infer they are reporting a record of semantic distinctions with these words.

Definitions of course have become more clear to us, but that doesn’t mean they were not existing in the past. It’s just that these days we have precise orthography, stable editing and of course a universal means (the internet) to communicate and understand that words like “alway” really are special and particular.

Overlapping definitions of words does not invalidate specificity.

1611 compositor errors, historical orthographic variation or US printing inconsistencies do not erase distinctions.

The record of normal, standard and proper KJB editions, especially from Cambridge, are a witness to stabilisation, not wild, random, erratic orthographic, spelling and word variations, which means that meaning was stable and preexists any issue about apparent changes in orthography in places, which kind of editorial work is consistent particularly with Dr Parris and Thomas Paris’ and Dr Blayney’s editing.

I have engaged in a methodology of studying the editions and the words, and the editorial weight is with the consistency of the Pure Cambridge Edition. We can safely say that 1769 and PCE editorial decisions present the intended distinctions in English usage, as to the differences between the words, and the English language standardisation has served to help clarify distinctions that may have been historically more blurred.

Therefore, Pastor Ross’ objection that the KJB words are more chaotic, or less distinct, or exist in some level of editorial, semantic and conceptual uncertainty is a position which is antithetical to both reality and to the revelation of divine providence.

CONCLUSION

If Ross is right, he must explain why “alway”, “ensample”, “stablish” and “throughly” display remarkable stability across centuries of KJB printing.

If no meaningful distinction in meaning existed, and these words are just synonymous pairs, we would expect far greater instability, especially in the fluid orthographic environment of the 1600s and early 1700s. But we see general stability.

If these words were really just synonymous, the printers and editors would have had every reason to standardise or modernise them long ago, yet these words resisted elimination. Such survival does not reflect random orthographic drift or mere accident, but a continuity far more consistent with providential preservation of distinctions.

Surely the only answer is that these words exist precisely because they are providentially placed, and because their theological meaning and nuance matters.

ADDITIONAL NOTES: In the recent few months before writing this article, I made a few cheeky but harmless memes about Bryan Ross. His accusations I have addressed to which he has committed to writing are far worse than anything I’ve said. I want to be careful to treat him as a brother, because for all the differences in our theology, I don’t mind him as a person, and want to only disagree on him on things we have to disagree on, and do so in robust but constructive ways.