INTRODUCTION

In his latest attempt to discuss my work, Bryan Ross, from Grand Rapids MI, has focused on part of my book Vintage Bibles, and some other things.

I do think Ross is flogging a dead horse in what he is trying to do. I mean, his scrutiny is only showing what I have said to be defensible anyway.

And to be honest, if people need clarity, it’s a good thing. I’m not trying to throw out empty name-calling, or mistreat Ross. We do disagree on some points, but as can be seen from the following, it should have been clear enough from reading my original writings.

There are good things from scrutiny, and I hope Pastor Ross can privately be glad that it was really him that helped me to go and check out the “throughly and thoroughly” situation.

Also, in these remote “interactions” I’ve had with Ross, I don’t want there to be mission creep on other side topics like political debates on Libertarianism. I’m sure there are plenty of topics to both agree and more unimportant ones to disagree upon, and to be honest we are all learning too.

In this case, prepare for a bit of a deep dive into what might be to some a bit boring.

CHAPTER ONE OF MY BOOK

Ross has been reviewing my book Vintage Bibles.

One of the main areas that Ross and I disagree on is hermeneutics. The specific application of those issues can be observed in how he interprets Zephaniah 3 and Isaiah 34 differently to me. I would also think he has the same view of Isaiah 28. Although he doesn’t lay out specifically why he doesn’t agree with my interpretation in a theological sense, he does lay out that he rejects my view because of what he thinks are various logical fallacies, eisegesis and verbally he indicated a different timeframe for prophecy fulfilment.

All of those things are answerable in two ways, first because I think Ross has accepted some of the errors of modernistic thought which has seeped into theology in how they do hermeneutics, and second, because Ross does not actually address or understand things in a proper framework of multiple fulfilments, including historicism, and therefore has a presupposition of a different divine-oeconomic framework (his form of dispensationalism, seeming single fulfilment of prophecy, etc.)

He also implies that I am not using a scholastic method to build a theological case. One must understand that in writing a book, one is referring to things established or discussed elsewhere, one is not obligated to lay out the theological argumentation to build something, but all works are built on some level of what we might call suppositions, e.g. that English is already understood, that Christianity is already true, that God really exists, that the King James Bible is really right, etc. etc. It is not fitting, in a narrative that focuses much more on the history of Bible printing and an overview of prophecy, to have to establish and lay out all the groundwork which exists elsewhere.

In short, such ideas are presented as is, not as if they need to be established to be. Just because Ross may have a pre-commitment to his own views, or an “arrogance” as to their correctness does not mean that I have to write to argue a case to suit his starting points.

CHAPTER TWO OF MY BOOK

Ross demonstrates a poor and incorrect understanding of the history of the printed forms of the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE), even though I have supplied all readiness of information in my Guide, my Century and my Vintage Bibles books (here).

In the book being discussed, I show empirically the earliest known PCE and rationally the earliest known PCE. These are the Cambridge Lectern Bible of 1911 and the Jasper Bible of 1910.

Unlike Ross’ attempt to talk about a “shift”, I am talking about evidence. I was showing in 2025 evidence that had come to hand. This evidence is in support of the PCE, it appears to be utter obduracy that makes Ross try to say anything else.

Ross has in his mind this idea of a “single event ‘circa 1900s’” versus “a gradual emergence across many Cambridge printings circa WWI and emerging in the 1920s” versus “locating the first known PCE to the year 1911”.

Ross is creating a false trichotomy here. I can answer it by showing how it all began with David Norton.

For one moment, also, Ross seems to disparage the idea of using Norton, or that I’ve looked at Scrivener, or even the RV! This is surely a propagandist technique that says that if you admit that the Vulgate has a right reading (say 1 John 5:7) you must be a Catholic and heretic! Ross himself has been much influenced by David Norton, so it’s hypocritical if he attacks me for looking at facts and also showing when these things might have something right. It is evident that that the RV has places right where it agrees jot and tittle with the KJB, let’s be sensible about it. But maybe Ross can’t be so sensible since he seems to have a real problem with the concept of jots and tittles, and yet, his “verbal equivalency” view is even more tolerant of the RV, so people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Anyway, back to the trichotomy, and I don’t know why I have to explain it when it should be evident, but:

1. In about 2001 or 2002 David Norton told me that the PCE (he didn’t name it that) was made around the turn of the 20th century.
2. Early online discussions included a person who said they had seen a Bible they thought was from the late 1890s that matched the PCE.
3. I could see by comparing KJBs from Cambridge that there was a clear difference between a PCE and the Victorian era Bible printings.
4. Everyone else in the world who has looked or commented, including Cambridge University Press and Rick Norris, knows that at some time there was a set of readings distinct which is what I have called the PCE.
5. Logically the PCE editions that we have came from a common origin.

So thus, my three points are this, which addresses Ross’ false trichotomy:

1. There is a specific editing that took place in the early 1900s, I have often stated “circa 1900s”, which is approximately between 1900 and 1910.
2. There are multiple known different editions across the 20th century from Cambridge, e.g. the Lectern, Amethyst, Cameo, Turquoise, etc., which match this editing.
3. The earliest known copy extant is from 1911 and possibly 1910, but that is not definitive, that is evidentiary data.

Ross is seeking to try to apply a false standard of “jot and tittle perfection” because that is his antithesis. He objects to the jot and tittle view so much that he must try to apply his “enemy logic” in a foisted reductio ad absurdum fashion as though I must have, produce or believe in an absolutely immaculate printing of an editing from Cambridge in a specific moment of time.

Further, because Cambridge has not specifically identified any such editing, he then tries to imply that it doesn’t exist. (Norton knew something happened though.) Or worse, if he does find sheafs of paper with corrections or notes written on it by the editor, he will want to use this as his absolute “gotcha”.

All of this is ridiculous because no one is seeking nor proclaiming an immaculate printing from Cambridge. The Pure Cambridge Edition editing that was done was correct.

I have already explained that I copy-edited which is to say, using existing copies, ensured typographical correctness.

(I know Ross has already wrongly rejected the levels of perfection argument, but just as there is a difference between a version and an Edition, and that a version can have various Editions, so there is a difference between an Edition and settings of an Edition. It is possible to have a correct setting of an Edition of a version.)

I have also already explained that if we were to take a Lectern Bible of 1911 and a Cameo of 1925 and compared them together, besides any specific printing errors in either, that they would completely agree, except for essentially a hyphen or two and the case of a letter “A” on “And” at an obscure place. (These are copy-editing differences not Edition/editing issues.)

Gen. 41:56 And

Josh. 17:11 En-dor

Song 6:12 Ammi-nadib

LECTERN PCE

Gen. 41:56 and

Josh. 17:11 Endor

Song 6:12 Amminadib

TURQUOISE & CAMEO PCE

And compare to these:

Gen. 41:56 and

Josh. 17:11 Endor

Song 6:12 Amminadib

1611

Gen. 41:56 And

Josh. 17:11 En-dor

Song 6:12 Ammi-nadib

1769

Gen. 41:56 and

Josh. 17:11 Endor

Song 6:12 Ammi-nadib

SCRIVENER

And this is my copy-edit:

Gen. 41:56 And

Josh. 17:11 Endor

Song 6:12 Amminadib

BIBLE PROTECTOR PCE

That’s what Ross is fighting, he is fighting about two hyphens and the case of a letter “A”.

So, let’s easily answer Ross’ false trichotomy from before. Yes, the PCE was made circa 1900s, yes the PCE was printed in many editions and yes, the earliest printing known right now is 1911.

MORE MISINTERPRETATIONS OF CHAPTER TWO

Ross wilfully misinterprets because he wants to reject or belittle my position ad nauseam.

Ross quotes me saying that the PCE is not based on any single first edition. But he misinterprets that to mean that “According to this citation, there was no single ‘first PCE Bible.’” His statement seems to be utterly false. What I am saying is that it is not about faithfulness to the jot and tittle of some edition that we don’t know when obviously even if we saw it, it would likely have printing mistakes (errata, corrigenda). But since that same editio princeps is a PCE, it obviously is as PCE as all printings of the PCE are PCE. So, Ross is just trying to reject out of nonsense.

Ross goes on saying, “Verschuur now argues that once the PCE first appeared in 1911”. The fact is I said the first known edition that I have at hand is from 1911 is not the same as saying it is the first printing. It may be, but we cannot say categorically.

He says, “According to Verschuur, Cambridge established the Pure Cambridge Edition around 1910–1911, but instead of creating entirely new plates, they gradually corrected existing ones, resulting in a transition period where some Bibles were fully PCE and others only partly corrected.”

This is not right. I said it is possible that the PCE was first made in 1910-1911, not that it certainly was. Also, they did plan to make new plates, we may have some examples, such as perhaps the Amethyst, etc. But the Great War intervened, a new printer came on board and Bruce Rogers was busy looking at the situation. Also, the discussion about correcting printing plates is entirely a separate issue. A few things happened:

1. Cambridge printed new PCEs by making new sets of plates a based on a plan put into place from the end of World War I (e.g. from the early 1920s).
2. They also made changes in existing plates in copies we see from the broad World War I period.
3. They didn’t change all plates, e.g. the Brevier NT.

Ross goes on, and says, “Differences in verses like Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 show which plates had been updated.”

Actually, that’s not quite right. It’s a signal to us. But we have to check whether we can see physical differences in the print copies. There are a number of Victorian-era editions from Cambridge which have capital “S” on “Spirit” at those two verse references. This editorial change very likely happened prior to the PCE because it is observed in the Interlinear Bible, in Scrivener and as I said in a very recent blog article (and elsewhere), in some Victorian era printings such as one I have from 1910.

The point is that if the printing plates were changed to be “near-PCE”, then there is wholesale changes in these editions throughout which indicate that they were Victorian era editions now changed to PCE readings in many places, but the fact that Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 were not changed or only partially changed shows that the PCE editor did not make that change as part of his “making” of the PCE, it was taken because it was already in existence in the copy he used prior to the editing of the PCE.

The result is printing plates amended with changes throughout to match the PCE, yet if Matthew or Mark were not correct, it was not a PCE, even though throughout it matched changes, which is a witness and testimony to the PCE being conformed toward.

Ross says, “The editor likely used the Interlinear Bible as his reference, causing some readings (like capital “Spirit”) to appear in early PCE printings such as the 1911 Lectern Bible and the 1910 Jasper Bible.”

Yes, that is my suggestion, but it is not certainly so. Also, the Jasper’s plates were made in 1910 as well, and they have “Spirit” capital in Matthew and Mark there. But I only have a copy from a few years later.

It’s like someone else has made his written notes in places and Ross doesn’t always know what he is saying when he is presenting his information, and so gets things wrong. He has admitted that he gets help from sources, but I think he is being mis-helped by some.

MISINTERPRETATION ABOUT THE RV

If Ross read my Guide, and instead of being obsessed about Pentecostalism allegedly affecting my copy-editing (which is really what he would have to say, which means that hyphens, the letter “A” on “And” and the end of the word “LORD’s” is actually chosen for Pentecostal doctrine, which of course he doesn’t say because he can’t say), he should have actually concentrated on my main argument which was:

1. A number of people in the 19th century said that the KJB needs to be revised, which evil people took to make the RV
2. Scrivener indicated in action with his misguided work, and Burgon and other good people said that the KJB needs to be revised (carefully)
3. The PCE was the quietly accepted revision which rose by degrees over the years

(Someone actually said they could not find a PCE. That’s simply not true, online sales and new sales from budget to premium abound with available PCEs!)

Then it should be understood that the RV might reflect some editorial or copy-editorial things which are correct, as it was made on the basis of KJB, and when printed by Oxford and Cambridge in an interlinear format, was representing in the AV parallel (or horizontal, as we might term it), the state of the KJB in some representative way at that time.

Let us take Jeremiah 34:16 as an example. The KJB at that time had “whom he”, whether from Oxford or Cambridge. The PCE editor, around the 1900s, possibly in 1910 or 1911, editing the Victorian KJB to the PCE changed “he” to “ye”.

What do we find? The RV also had “ye”. So the RV got something right when the KJBs at that time had “he”. But, and this is important, did all KJBs have “he”? No. Old KJBs had “ye”, Scrivener had “ye”, and some other editions too.

THE CASE OF THE WORD SPIRIT IN THE GOSPELS AGAIN

Ross says, “Thus, Verschuur is not accurate when he says that the capitalization of “Spirit” in Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 was not present ‘in other normal Bibles printed by Cambridge.’”

I actually have shown and said it was in some editions, like in Victorian one from 1910 from Cambridge. Yes, if you take a quote in isolation I said it wasn’t in normal editions generally from Cambridge at that time, that’s true, but it was sometimes in some editions. In general, however, the normal Victorian edition from Cambridge which may well encompass printings from 1860 to around the Second World War, they generally didn’t have capital “S” at that place.

I actually mentioned the 1910 a few days before Ross did his broadcast too, on my blog, so he obviously is picking quotes and presenting them in such a way as to suit his narrative. I know he looked at my blog because he spent some pages talking about it in his document.

NEAR PCEs

Another concept that Ross goes all over the place on is that of Victorian Cambridge printing plates that were changed to be like the PCE except that they missed (i.e. had not itemised) Matthew 4:1 and/or Mark 1:12. Thus, I show that amended copies do not touch those places, and so there’s a mixture in the printing plates in one or both of those places.

Ross says, “His classification is based on the type and nature of deviations rather than their count, and he identifies certain Cambridge series (such as Small Pica, Minion, Bourgeois, and Brevier) as examples of these nearly aligned editions without ever defining a numerical cutoff.”

This indicates that Ross does not understand the issue. The issue is that these editions are the same PCEs as far as they agree in many places throughout, that is, according to this example list bibleprotector.com/editions, but not at Matthew 4:1 and/or Mark 1:12, which happen to be key tests. Thus not technically PCE for those faults but having all the other PCE editing present.

For this reason, it is a simple matter to hand annotate the correction(s) and that Bible would essentially represent the PCE, and be used like as it were indeed a PCE. In fact, they have mistakenly been used as PCEs by some anyway, so there is no problem just to make the little annotations or amendments.

To be clear, there are other printings at other times from Collins that also match the PCE, but might have minor differences, including in one of the tests, such as at Ezekiel 11:24, or even, with the wrong change that happened in 1985 at Cambridge, at 1 John 5:8. It would be a simple enough matter to hand correct or stick a little correction in a Bible which would be satisfactory enough.

It seems like Ross wants us to be represented as over-zealous as if we would commit such things to the flames for offending in one point of the law. But the fact is, we are about knowing the truth, and since when was it evil to use a Cambridge Bible that only needed to be pencil-corrected at 1 John 5:8? I’ve done it to other Bibles, you could carry out the endeavour fully in an Oxford Bible printed by Allan if you wanted to. And what about all the Bibles and copies of Scripture that existed and served the Body of Christ before there ever was either a KJB or a PCE?

ROSS’S SILLINESS

Almost 20 years ago I suggested in forums that if people thought to conform non-PCE Bibles to just the 12 tests of the PCE, without general consistency in the editing throughout, that this would not be a correct approach.

Ross points out that other editions, including the 1611 and a particular American printing, have some of the places close to the PCE if using the 12 tests in an isolated way. Of course they would, because:

1. The proper PCE tests indicate correctness that happens to be in some or many other editions
2. The 1611 Edition is one of the sources for the correctness of the PCE, but some can be the 1769 Oxford

The silliness of the suggestion would be like taking something like the ESV and making it match the 12 tests only.

Ross tries to accuse me of fuzziness around this matter, when in fact he is trying to make fuzzy about the clarity of the issue. It’s like he is deliberately trying to make something silly, when it is evident that using something like bibleprotector.com/editions there is going to be consistency with the PCE the whole way through in many places.

So yes, we identify and determine the PCE by tests, but the PCE itself has a list of more and particular differences in an editorial sense if we were measuring the PCE between what was printed in 1911 (an extant copy) and what was printed in a Victorian KJB from some years before (another extant copy).

I think Ross didn’t understand things before he looked at all things I wrote, and has progressively learned things over recent months as he read what I wrote, and worse, because he has an a priori reason to reject what I have written, he is always approaching in an antithetical mode.

Ross says that Edmund Cushing in 1829 in his edited KJB has some places that agree to the PCE (because of adherence to the 1769 tradition and obviously at times people looked back at 1611 and made corrections, Scrivener mentions some editions of this sort too).

Just notice how silly Ross goes: “This Massachusetts printing from 1829 is incredibly telling. It proves that readings Verschuur wants existed before 1900 and it also proves the theological bias of Verschuur. The publisher Edmund Cushing had no Pentecostal affiliation, yet one edition from the early nineteenth century had most of Bible Protector’s desired readings. It shows that Bible Protector must arbitrarily pick and choose readings to make his PCE argument work.”

First, Cushing’s work shows that editing, even with some good choices, was happening over the years. That’s no problem, that’s a pro-PCE argument, because it reiterates that editing is good and that others made good editorial choices, and that can be recognised in hindsight.

Second, and this is where Ross gets really silly, he talks about readings that I want. Now stop right there. Proper readings in the PCE is what Cambridge wanted. It’s nothing to do with my will that Cambridge printed a Bible with those readings in 1911 (or earlier), and likewise that Cambridge printed the same Edition (the PCE) in many different editions for 90 years.

How can they be readings I wanted when those readings prevailed in many copies, in Cambridge and Collins Bibles for a century?! I wasn’t even looking at this issue until the year 2000.

Third, Ross says, “It proves that readings Verschuur wants existed before 1900”. Yes, I know, many PCE edits are restorations of 1611 wordings, that is, Barker editions from 1611 to the 1630s. Of course the PCE is a lot to do with Cambridge restoring 1611 readings, just check out these examples, non-exhaustive, limited to Genesis to Psalms only:

Genesis 10:7 Sabtecha, Genesis 25:4 Abida, Joshua 10:1 Adoni-zedek, Joshua 13:18 Jahazah, Joshua 19:2 or Sheba, Joshua 19:19 Hapharaim, Joshua 19:19 Shion, 2 Samuel 5:14 Shammua, 2 Samuel 21:21 Shimea, 2 Samuel 23:37 Naharai, 1 Chronicles 1:38 Ezer, 1 Chronicles 2:47 Geshan, 1 Chronicles 2:49 Achsah, 1 Chronicles 5:11 Salchah, 1 Chronicles 7:1 Shimron, 1 Chronicles 7:19 Shemida, 1 Chronicles 7:27 Jehoshua, 1 Chronicles 23:20 Michah, 1 Chronicles 24:11 Jeshua, 2 Chronicles 20:36 Ezion-geber, 2 Chronicles 33:19 sin, 2 Chronicles 35:20 Carchemish, Ezra 2:2 Mispar, Ezra 4:10 Asnappar, Nehemiah 7:30 Geba, Job 30:6 clifts, Psalm 148:8 vapour, etc.

These are some places where the PCE was changed from the Victorian Cambridge, and these are all places where the PCE matches the 1611. It’s clear that the PCE restored a lot of 1611 stuff. (It shows that the PCE editor was likely familiar with Scrivener’s Appendix C for guidance.)

But Ross says, “and it also proves the theological bias of Verschuur.”

How? I mean, what theology am I upholding to support the restoration of 1611 spellings in places? Jacobite theology?!

Ross says, “The publisher Edmund Cushing had no Pentecostal affiliation, yet one edition from the early nineteenth century had most of Bible Protector’s desired readings.”

And so we have it, the utter silliness. This silliness stands for itself.

Ross I think is now engaging in what appears to be deception, for he has already wrongly tried to say that the 12 tests for the PCE are somehow “Pentecostal”, which itself is based on nothing but his own wishful thinking, and now he says that other editions matching the PCE in some places has something to do with (or not to do with) Pentecostalism. Which just is silly, it would be like me saying that Ross is a clown, but because I don’t have a photo of him dressed in a clown, then Ross must be hiding that he is a clown. I really need not go on with this.

THE PRINTING PLATES

Ross says, “Verschuur does not provide documented historical evidence in Chapter 2 for his claims about World War I affecting Cambridge’s Bible plates”.

Actually, it is mentioned in Cambridge materials about printing plates being donated, and it is evident from printed Bibles that printing plates were amended. Like anyone doing scholarship, I am mentioning the facts and possibilities.

We know that in fact Cambridge was turning towards Monotype, and that a new series of Bible plates were made from after the war. This is evident from Cambridge sources as well as the evidence of extant Bibles themselves as a product of that process.

Ross then says, “Verschuur then asserts that ‘all new Bibles’ that were set after WWI followed the Lectern Bible form 1911.” Actually, it appears that all new Bibles printed were the PCE as the Lectern also was, that would be consistent with scholarly practice in examining all the information and extant evidence.

We are told in quotes from Cambridge historians that a new round of Bibles was made in the 1920s, we can find reference to this happening from Cambridge, and we can also see it by evidence of Bibles like Sapphires, Cameos and so on.

Ross seems more interested in casting doubt, including around putting way more emphasis on the melting of book plate, but does admit, “even if Verschuur’s WWI plate-replacement/melting narrative is not proven, his specimen-based evidence still supports a narrower claim: many post-war, newly originated Cambridge settings (e.g., Sapphire, Cameo, Turquoise, later Ruby 32mo, Brevier Octavo, Pitt Minion) match the PCE markers, while legacy plate lines show mixed corrections that produced both Pure and near-Pure outcomes during the transition”.

Surprisingly factual there (and the melting plate is a side issue). Even his use of “Pure” without quotes is good.

But he goes on, again to cast doubt, “he offers no CUP archival directive”. This is a foolish and pointless point, because Cambridge doesn’t know. They have not brought out any archival material on the subject in any direction. We only have sources like David McKitterick.

Everything being pointed to is based on extant literature on the subject and primary source analysis. If we knew of Cambridge’s archival information, we would consider it. So Ross is being very unfair, because he is doubting good scholarship because it lacks “omniscient knowledge” as though research must be doubted because it is only based on extant facts (empiricism) and justifiable conjecture (rationalism). It’s really because Ross wants to reject what I have to say that he is treating me so grossly unfairly.

He then tries to question the conjectural list I produced of the 26 different Cambridge Bibles from 1921. The documentary evidence says there are 26. People can judge my scholarship in trying to guess the 26 active titles. He doesn’t say anything about that, rather, he tries to doubt that all new Bibles from Cambridge were PCE.

The evidence is that all new Bibles from Cambridge were PCE. We can see them historically and today. The evidence is that there were some that were not changed, the Victorians, and I’ve bought them online, so I can see them. I can show them. The evidence is that some plates were changed to be PCE, but missed the Spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness sometimes.

Ross writes, “the categorical ‘all new Bibles … were PCE’ overreaches the evidence and is better restated as ‘most newly set, post-WWI Cambridge Bibles align with the Lectern/PCE baseline; plate-based carryovers varied.’”

He is trying to be pedantic but actually, it is so far evident that there are old Victorian plates unchanged, Victorian plates changed to be PCE (or near PCE), and new printings made which were PCE (and are with us today).

So what I have said about the state of KJBs and Cambridge and what was happening in 1921 stands.

What Ross may be trying to do is to get rid of the concept of the PCE as being descriptive of historical editions, and just talk in pure empiricism about the 1911 Lectern Bible as being of the same editorial variety as the newly printed Sapphires, Cameos and Turquoise, and perhaps without saying they are PCE, because he might want to make the words “Pure Cambridge Edition” only apply to my electronic text of the 21^st century, and because he then could highlight, in a naturalistic sense, the few little differences between the Sapphires, Cameos and Turquoise as compared to the Lectern, on the pedantic grounds of two hyphens and the case of a letter “A”. If indeed he is trying to do that, he would be doing it to create a propagandistic lie that there is no PCE in the 20^th century.

Ross directly says, “Add to this … that Cambridge University Press has no institution [sic] knowledge of ever intentionally editing the text to create the PCE.” So the intention to imply that there is no real editing to even make the editorial text as is evident in the Lectern KJB of 1911 could be designed to build his propagandist lie. He is not denying that it is different, he is using Cambridge not knowing to cast a doubt upon it. Even though David Norton said it happened. And even though the empirical examination shows the editorial differences between the Lectern KJB of 1911 and other Cambridge KJBs around that time.

This editing has a name, and has a name for all different settings which followed, they are called editions of the PCE.

However, happily, Ross does at least admit “Cambridge was printing multiple streams of King James text” and includes the PCE, so thankfully he hasn’t fully denied reality. At the same time, he states the error that Victorian and near-PCEs were printed “throughout the 20th century”. Actually, no, near-PCEs faded out and the last time Victorian PCEs were printed that I know of, besides in the Interlinear AV/RV was the Brevier NTs for the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

So in the 1920s, “all newly set after WWI were PCE” is correct. Here I detect Ross trying to make the Lectern of 1911 “the PCE” and the PCEs of the 1920s not PCE because he is trying to specify or limit PCE-ness to only an alleged original prototype rather than an archetype. (I hope I’m wrong about Ross’ motives here.)

His faulty reasoning is to ascribe a specific print-run or set of printing plates as “the” PCE, with all its minor faults that may be from human typesetting and so on, rather than the holistic and consistent approach which requires a critical representation, which is what the Bible Protector text file copy does for the printed PCEs.

Ross’ approach seems scholarly, but is also pandering to an Enlightenment approach.

For example, Ross could argue that the original autographs of Scripture are the perfect singular originals, or that the 1611 printing is the singular premier standard. The problem is that we access the originals by looking at many copies of it, not a singular prototype. Likewise, even Ross cannot hold up the 1611 printing by itself since he considers the input from drafts and alleged drafts, as well as obviously the need to consult consecutive printings from Barker, Bill and Norton (Royal Printers, London).

I have laid out very clearly that while the work of the editor to make the PCE is good, we are looking at copy-editing which is a whole other field, which must take into account various printed PCEs, and thus, a critically copy-edited text was published by Bible Protector.

THE PCE IS HISTORICAL

Ross goes on, “The data highlighted above from Verschuur’s own list of Cambridge editions in 1921 significantly weakens his claim that the PCE had already emerged as a unified, dominant, or even clearly defined textual standard by that time.”

No, my information represents reality. Look at when the KJB was first printed, how Geneva Versions popped up until the 1640s.

The PCE took over, that’s the point. Taking over happens by degrees. It happens by changing plates, it happens by printing new Bibles. That’s why every new KJB made by Cambridge until the Pitt Minion were all PCEs. Then they made the Concord, the new Crystal and the Compact.

Ross writes, “Rather than showing a decisive editorial breakthrough around 1910–1911 that produced a new, pure standard, the evidence instead suggests a gradual, uneven, and largely undocumented drift toward certain readings—while the Press continued to publish numerous non-PCE editions for decades.”

The Press did continue with a variety, yes, but that’s not a failure of showing that there was editing. It is logical that there was editing to even make the PCE. When you only have one correct printing plate set of a new edition, you have to keep printing other sizes and styles that aren’t updated. Yes they didn’t amend all the plates, yes there were near-Pures for a while. But that’s all reality, so for a while there were various different printings. This is not evidence which Ross illogically tries to frame as if there is no “editorial breakthrough”. Where does that terminology even come from? The argument sounds very weird, like it was conceived by AI.

There was very clearly a PCE in 1911 that was very different to Victorian Era Cambridge KJB Bibles we can see from a few years before. Just because AI cannot “see” it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

It is true that there were still Victorian editions listed as being available in the 1950s. Why would we expect that only PCEs exist, that Cambridge would somehow know to expunge everything and only print the PCE? No, they didn’t know how important the PCE really was, they acted as providential agents.

Ross goes on to say, “Verschuur furnishes no evidence that anyone identified the PCE as a distinctly ‘pure’ form of the Cambridge text until he did in the early 21st century. The influence of the popular Scofield Reference Bible published by Oxford would also need to be considered.”

I can only present actual evidence, not invent archival information that may or may not exist at Cambridge University Press or their library. I can only present what can be induced from common sense about what has been written, and what can be observed empirically, and what can be understood. In this, it should be a judgment of scholarly soundness and reality that the PCE exists, that it is proper.

And just because the Scofield Oxford was used by certain classes of Christians is not a factor as to its editorial integrity. The Scofield was never by any providential means upheld as more typographically or editorially accurate than Cambridge KJBs, but we have Waite, Ruckman, Riplinger, Vance and many others all preferring Cambridge.

ROSS’ ROBOTIC POINTS

I suspect that Ross actually used AI to make his points, because this statement from him is very easy to refute: “The result is an argument that is stronger than a bare assertion yet short of a complete scholarly proof, because the book never reproduces the actual twelve PCE test readings from the 1911 Lectern Bible itself.”

Hmm, really, so now I have to reproduce 12 tests from a 1911 Lectern Bible for some reason?

Here’s another doozy that sounds very AI, “As a result, while his argument is plausible and directionally suggestive, it falls short of the rigorous historical proof typically required to establish an exact origin point for a major textual standard.”

Um, I don’t know what is the first printing of the PCE, that’s not my fault. Nor is it my explicit aim to find out. I am very interested, but would be like finding the handwritten master the 1611 translators sent to the press.

And again, “identifying 1911 as the first confirmed exemplar”. No, an exemplar is the first printing which I have said I don’t actually know if it is. It might be probable, but I don’t actually know certainly. I’m not trying to prove that it is. I’m not trying to robotically adhere to the first prototype copy. I can imagine that AI would interpret that way about my book.

Ross says, “Instead, Cambridge produced multiple parallel textual streams—including PCE, near-PCE, and Victorian editions (according to Verschuur’s classifications)—that disagreed in spelling, capitalization, and wording, with even PCE-labeled printings differing from one another.”

There’s a massive amount of nuance there that is missed, or is misrepresented for propagandistic purposes. The difference between a Victorian KJB and two printings of the PCE are very different things. One is on the level of editing, the other on the level of copy-editing.

Ross then says, “As a result, the first fully consistent PCE was not any physical Bible, but the 2006 electronic text file assembled by Verschuur, making the digital edition a new, harmonized construction rather than a reproduction of a historically standardized printed text.”

So, because I didn’t photocopy a Bible (the false charge of “verbatim identicality”) but had an electronic text file (Microsoft Word document actually) which I printed (and I did), that somehow invalidates something?

In other words, Ross has falsely charged me with believing in a fake belief called “verbatim identicality”. This is because he believes in his own recently made up doctrine called “verbal equivalence”. In fact, there is a true position that is between both wrong castings.

The PCE represents the best editing of the KJB, and we have a copy of it that is without typographical error, which is a blessing.

BACKGROUND

A spiritual confusion seems to hang like a fog over some people’s attempted understanding of the PCE. It’s not as if they are wholly wrong, but that they don’t seem to be thinking clearly. I write therefore to help clarify in case anyone is being confused. Surely we shall be all better for clarity.

Pastor Bryan Ross has recently been making a series of videos, which discuss me and the PCE. His attempted analysis is often mistaken, while in part quoting me accurately, he too often misinterprets what I have written and ascribes things to me and my views which are simply wrong.

I stand for the correctness of the King James Bible, leading me to the correctness of a specific Edition. The editing for this Edition was made in the early 20^th century, and has been evident through a following body of printings of the KJB from Cambridge University Press. Then, in 2007, I published an electronic file of that same Edition.

Part of Ross’ problem is because he is trying to make a case about some sort of Pentecostal motives behind promoting this Edition, which is clearly not as directly or as overwhelming as he makes out. Also, while Ross believes that the King James Bible is good and right, he does not state overtly that it is a perfect text or a perfect translation, but rather seems to think it is the best or most acceptable Bible in English. Because he doesn’t recognise the providences that brought about the KJB’s perfect Text (set of readings) or perfect translation, he further certainly does not accept a perfect Edition (set of editorial choices), nor a perfect edition (a specific setting of typesetting with associated copy-editing).

Ross wrongly applies the variation found within Scripture, where the Scripture quotes itself, to also apply to the doctrine of sufficiency or gracious sufficiency, which is the leeway we observe in the valid history of Texts/readings/versions, translations, Editions and edition-setting.

Variation in inspiration is not the same as variation in Text and translation. The variations in inspiration are all true, the variations in Text and translation can be true, less true or erroneous.

Ross misunderstands the nature of various works I have written, specifically, my Guide to the PCE (which is still in its draft form), Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy (and further refinements), A Century of the PCE (which itself went through significant editing over a period of months) and Vintage Bibles.

Consider that I have been up front, open, candid and provided my documentary information (free of charge) of the historical record around how the PCE was made and promoted. Yet Ross has tried in vain to make out some sort of Pentecostal (what he almost implies as self-delusionary) and arbitrary (what he almost implies is self-aggrandising) motives in the process or promotion of the PCE by Bible Protector (me).

At the same time, Ross is trying to sell his own work, including promoting his attempted novel doctrine of “verbal equivalency”, let alone his questionable perspective on interpreting the New Testament which forces only Romans to Philemon to be of special weight beyond the Gospels, General Epistles and Revelation.

Ross has been making a series of teaching videos about the Pure Cambridge Edition which are so often factually off, and because of this, I will address a few things. First, let us establish a timeline:

• Early 20^th century, Pure Cambridge Edition begun with a concerted edit at Cambridge

• 2000 Cambridge no longer prints the PCE

• 2000 Matthew Verschuur begins investigating editions

• 2001–2006 Matthew Verschuur, with the Elders of his church, identify and study the PCE

• 2007 Bible Protector website launched, numerous booklets released

• 2009 Monograph Glistering Truths written (several editions over the years)

• 2013 Sixth draft of the Guide to the PCE encompasses 10 years of research, which lays out a Providentialist framework

• 2014/5 Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy book (other books written and materials build/refine) which lays out a Historicist prophecy framework

• 2015 https://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf

• 2024 A Century of the Pure Cambridge Edition gives a summary of the history of the PCE (numerous editions made in 2024), which lays out a promotional documentary history framework

• 2025 Vintage Bibles, which emphasises a documentary history framework as well as a relevant Historicist prophecy framework

NOTE

Please note the use of capital letters which indicate differences in meaning, where “Text” means version, “text” means print/words; “Edition” means editorial choices, “edition” means any print run/style/size/variety of a Bible.

ANSWERING ROSS ON NUMEROUS ACCUSATIONS

Ross purports to be doing a study/review (an “exposé”) on the PCE and Bible Protector (materials) but much of the content of his review is coloured by his own biases and is more designed to either ridicule or misrepresent (often unwittingly) in a propagandistic framework which is unfair and misleading.

While Ross does tend to quote me fairly accurately, he too often does not interpret me correctly, and often selects quotes and marshals them in such a way as to give an unreasonable perspective.

One case is where I wrote four lines about the PCE being made around the time of early Pentecostalism, but many lines about the need for an edit of the King James Bible. He has blown up my “in passing” four lines while completely ignoring paragraph after paragraph on providences to do with bibliographical history around the King James Bible in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Another case is where I wrote once in the draft of my Guide to the PCE that a certain (way of) reading about the “spirit” instead of “Spirit” leading Jesus into the wilderness could be blasphemous. Ross took that one statement and said, in effect, Look, he is calling all these editions, all these historical KJBs, blasphemous. I concede that I have to revise that one statement for clarity, and that I am talking about anyone who, especially in the future, would insist that Jesus was not led by the Holy Ghost but something else, would be a blasphemy, and that ensuring “Spirit” (which most editions of the KJB have now any way) in Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 would be correct, and would ensure no one would insist on a blasphemous statement. But Ross uses the word “blasphemy” rhetorically in almost a continuous fashion.

Ross does this sort of thing a number of times, where even one word or one little thing is turned into a huge thing, while other big things are completely ignored. You can see that how he ignores the providentialist arguments about when the PCE appeared and instead he tries to make out that they are ones driven by Historicism (which he seems to misunderstand). Ross has therefore taken minor things as though they are like a central main stay of my world view, things which often have not even been in my thinking as a point.

ANSWERING THE ACCUSATION ABOUT THE KNOWN EDITIO PRINCEPS

Ross tries to argue that because there is not a known first edition of the PCE, that therefore something is to be questioned. (Because Cambridge University Press does not use that terminology.) Now, logically, one Edition does exist, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition, because of agreement in editorial readings in all those editions that have the PCE. Such agreement is detectable by an easy application of test passages.

If this is consistently true, then something like “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 or “Sara” at Romans 9:9 (for NTs) would also be consistent, where they are not so in other Editions (from other publishers). Obviously, there is a real consistency with these editions (of the PCE). See bibleprotector.com/editions.

In relation to newly printed KJB editions from that era, we find strong consistency in these sorts of things. In the editorial text of existing editions common from (say) 1945 to 1985, we find a consistency so we can identify them, whether PCE, Concord or Victorian Editions.

As we drill in, we find patterns in specific areas too. For example, Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 were not strictly part of the PCE changes, but had already been made previously in some editions (e.g. the Interlinear Bible and I have a copy of a Clay 1910 Small Pica Bible from Cambridge, for BFBS, which has Victorian readings but these changes), then it came through the editing process to be within the PCE, even though there are some early PCE-like editions which had issues in their transition from being Victorian Era editions to PCE editions.

In fact, so far, the most early PCE I have found, which may well be the editio princeps is a Quarto (Lectern) edition from 1911. So whether the Lectern is the first, and whether 1911 the right date, is uncertain.

This is where Ross is thinking like original languages people, where they want to point to autographs. He would want to point to the lectern edition, if it were the first, and say, look, it may have a typo in this or that place (it is not impossible), it may be questioned to disagree with the Bible Protector text file in places like Song of Solomon 6:12 or Joshua 17:11.

Taking this logic even further, are we to falsely be locked to say that only the typographical exactness with the lectern printing is right and a “verbatim standard”, to the very impression of the ink onto the paper? This is exactly the view of Ross and his friends about the PCE, because they want to create a false wedge. They don’t seem to want to credit the correct copy-editing I did in the electronic text file of the PCE, because they want to set up a false method of measurement.

But their points are not sound, and I’ve answered these sorts of things for years, e.g. this 2015 document: https://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf And besides booklets I have on my website from 2006 and other writings also explained the same thing.

ANSWERING THE ACCUSATION ABOUT DATES

Bryan Ross is playing a game. Watch how it unfolds. I started off with no information really about the PCE, so I had to construct from investigation and research everything. The facts were, from David Norton and from known sources, that the PCE came about around the start of the twentieth century. Generally I stated circa 1900s, which means around or near to the first decade of the 20^th century. That means we didn’t know, but could guess that it came from the late 19^th century to perhaps World War I.

The earliest physical evidence I had was the early 1930s, then the late 1920s, then the early 1920s, then the early to mid 1910s (World War I), then 1911 being the earliest known copy. Here is what I knew based on empirical extant copies:

• 2001 to 2020s — late 1920s

• 2020s — early 1920s

• 2024 — mid 1910s

• 2025 — at least 1911

Now, Ross has this whole misinterpretation about my Guide to the PCE, which has led him to incorrectly invent this whole scenario about it, suggesting that the first edition of the PCE was linked specifically to his misunderstanding of my Historicism (Bible prophecy interpretation) and his attempt to make an overly-avid case about my Pentecostalism, as though I was arguing for some sort of “verbatim identicality” for some mystical “first PCE edition”, and then later not. This is not the case, because:

1. When I made the text file of the PCE over the years, particularly in 2006 and formatting it as late as 2011, I was fully aware of places where printed copies differed where I had to make a choice.
2. I was never trying to “reconstruct” a first editing, or place some sort of emphasis as though the first printing of the first printed copy of the editing was of “verbatim identicality” quality.
3. We don’t need a first edition when we are dealing with a range of differences in printed copies, and have a very good view of all of them. The concord and harmony of the range of printed editions is so universal, that the differences are something like a hyphen here, the case of the letter “A” on “And” there.

In fact, Ross himself half understands that of course no printed copy of the PCE was immaculate from 1911 or before, until I made an electronic copy. Printing is well understood to be subject to human infirmity unless we have computers, manpower and hours involved. That’s how dealing with an electronic text has made this possible, and word processing computing is part of God’s providence.

Here I talk about relevant information in 2006! https://www.bibleprotector.com/God’s_chosen_edition_of_the_King_James_Bible.pdf

And also here in 2006! https://www.bibleprotector.com/revelation_pure_word.pdf

So Ross is playing a game when he claims that I allegedly said some editio princeps was the ultimate authority, when I never said such a thing, and in fact show some information in my Guide, pdf pages 174, 178, 546-549, etc.

Ross is therefore misleading where I show World War I info as documentary evidence about the making of the PCE in my PCE Century book, that the documentary evidence does not contradict my view as based on Norton and other information stated in the Guide. Norton also shows that in 1931 the PCE did exist as well, but explains that this is not when those changes happened.

So Ross is wrong and foolish to try to say, as he does, that there is some contradiction or “tension” between my Guide and my Century book.

The thing is, I think he knows what is in my next book, which at the time of writing he has not yet discussed, which is called Vintage Bibles. And that book explains even further, and undermines Ross’ entire mischaracterisation of the situation. I think the fact that he knows it and hasn’t let on could circumstantially mean that he knows he has been saying wrong things, that is, being deliberately not robustly correct.

ROSS CONFUSED

Further, what Ross has done is mix together two different concepts in the hierarchy of different levels or kinds of purity.

Here’s a chart that explains different kinds of purity:

• Purity of Scripture

• Purity of Text/readings/version

• Purity of translation

• Purity of editing/Edition

• Purity of setting

Each level is measured in different ways. Ross already has tried to refute this concept with nonsensical arguments and vain philosophy, where he basically ended up saying that editorial changes are translation changes.

I challenged the view (which he says is an unnuanced representation of his view) that different editorial changes are changes in translation. It seems to me that my assessment of his view is accurate.

But then he has tried to explain something about it with a long convoluted mixture of writing, and honestly it’s very hard for me to understand what he is trying to say there.

I am thinking that my straightforward understanding of what he thinks is correct, since he does hold the view that since editing includes checking the Hebrew and Greek, that editing is a translation level enterprise. This of course is a false standard, in that editing (except for italics) is to do with English, not Hebrew and Greek. So it is easy to see how he has connected editing with translation, which is exactly the point I was trying to make about his fuzzy thinking.

I am not trying to misrepresent or be dishonest about what he thinks. But when it comes to levels of purity, I suspect that a mixture of his assistant minister’s input and the likely use of AI, is creating convolution.

Well, talking about confusion, he has mistakenly confused the purity of an Edition with the purity of a setting. There can be many editions of an Edition. An Edition is a set of choices of an editor. We can see that the many editions of the Pure Cambridge Edition throughout the 20^th century exhibit the same set of editorial choices. Thus, the designation (of or as), Pure Cambridge Edition.

Now, if we go to the 1769, there are typos in Blayney’s “more perfect” folio copy. We could undertake to correct any such typos and make a critically correct 1769. Of course, no such thing exists, and such a thing shouldn’t exist, because there have been the years of editorial work which has progressively dealt with that situation. The 1769 stands literally as it does, but no one should be foolish enough to think that the typos of 1769 are God’s perfect and purely intended truth. (Nor that it was free of all typos.)

The answer is not only to have the Pure Cambridge Edition, but to have the Pure Cambridge Edition presented in a standard form (i.e. a setting). Well, computer checking and computer files and the internet and modern technology all mean that it was possible after the year 2000. So, that’s what Bible Protector specifically is responsible for: having actually a typographically correct copy of a book, and not just any book, but the King James Bible. That is to say, scrupulous correctness of God’s very words down to the punctuation.

I’m sure I’ve seen typos in an NIV copy I’ve had back in the early 1990s. And, in fact, at that time, my family found differences between my mother’s NIV printed in the UK versus ours printed by Zondervan. I don’t know how much it is a Dutch thing in particular that we picked up such things, but there you have some foreshadowing. (I mention this in particular because I suspect there’s a few people of Dutch descent connected to Bryan Ross.)

So, to be clear, an Edition is different to copy-editing editions of an Edition. And specific copy-editing to make a specific edition of an Edition is what I do claim to have undertaken.

So what I did is different but just as necessary as what editors like Blayney or Mede did.

ROSS ALL OVER THE SHOP

Ross tries to focus on my “editorial interventions” in making an electronic text. I mean, if we start from an edition of the PCE and compare to a different edition of the PCE, we still have the PCE because they are all editions of the PCE. So, there are no “editorial interventions”. There would be copy-editing.

That copy-editing was really primarily to do with text file errors in computer files. I used a numerous amount of files and file checking data.

Ross says I made “actual changes”. Of course, he is confused. I made no “actual changes”, except I made “LORD’s” [small cap “ORD”] throughout (throughly?) with a small “s” instead of “LORD’S” [small cap “ORD’S”] with a small capital “S”. So Ross is wrong to say I made “actual changes”, when we have 100 years of anything that is in the electronic text file. Literally, 100 years ago you would see in printed Bibles what it is in the text file in printed copies. Of course I just amalgamated those printed Bibles. I am saying, as a hypothetical experiment, if you had a Cambridge Lectern Bible and a Cameo Bible in 1926, there is nothing in the electronic file from Bible Protector that could not be found in those two together (except for “LORD’s” with a lower case not small capital “s”).

Ross makes up a whole story. He says that I made interventions, or claimed interventions, to create a reconstruction of the PCE. Actually, I just presented in one exactly correct form the PCE that already existed in myriads of copies, but Ross wants to create fog around this.

Ross tries to say that I chose editorial readings when Cambridge printings differed to one another. But these are copy-editorial choices, not editorial choices. Because it is a matter of choosing what already literally existed in many different copies of PCEs.

And these differences between PCE copies might be something like a hyphen in a place, so the copy-editing here is literally looking at jots and tittles.

Ross says that I standardised out of many Cambridge and Collins printings. Well, it suddenly becomes a whole different picture when you understand that it might have been one or two things in this printing and one or two in that. We are talking about something like a hyphen here or there.

But by far the more was comparing computer text files which could be riddled with typographical errors. So there are two technically different things: typos in single copies (electronic and printed), and variations which are in common in more than one printed copy, and variations in time in regards to things like the spelling of “Hemath”.

And what Ross is saying is confusing because I didn’t pick something from Collins over Cambridge, like as if I plucked one thing here and one thing there. The main focus in copy editing was and is to eliminate typos out of electronic texts, typos like a missing full stop. Typos that also can exist in any printed copy from Bible publishers.

And Ross gets even more confused, saying that I picked between “Geba” and “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26. Except, all PCEs have “Geba”, so he is misrepresenting the case.

Again, he mentions “Hammath” versus “Hemath”, which is actually a change made in the late 1940s, and not in the many PCEs printed between 1911 and the Second World War. All KJB editions and decades of early PCE printings have “Hemath”, and so did all Collins editions.

Even stranger, Ross says that choices were made around the twelve tests, e.g. “bewrayeth” versus “betrayeth”. This is complete nonsense. Ross has completely got this wrong, no Cambridge had “betrayeth”. Again, to compare “spirit” and “Spirit” criteria of the PCE, it can never be said that choices were made between PCEs on this, since no PCE contains anything that the tests find negatory. The tests are not differences in PCEs, they are differences between Cambridge PCE printings and various other Editions around the place, and these are things I did not edit or copy-edit, since they were already all correct in PCE copies.

To make it clear: I copy-edited, not edited. I made one innovation, in line with copy-editing, though in the area of formatting, which is to make “LORD’s” [small caps ORD] with a lower case “s”.

And Ross gets everything wrong, he says, “Bible Protector enforced the PCE’s key criteria, in cases where historical PCEs occasionally violated them. Historical PCEs sometimes contained lower case ‘spirit’ where he requires capital ‘Spirit’, or ‘betrayeth’ where he requires ‘bewrayeth’. But Verschuur’s electronic text enforces the 12 point test absolutely. Whenever a printed PCE disagreed with the 12 tests even once he fixed the reading in the electronic text. Verschuur introduced one unique typographical convention, LORD’s, using small cap s.”

Everything is wrong there. Everything. There’s no PCE with variants on the 12 points, because then such a copy would not be PCE. Many copies of the KJB use small caps for the “ORD’S” lettering on LORD’S. I made the “s” lower case not small cap. Or, as young people say, “no cap”.

This one paragraph of complete nonsense from Ross should be illustrative of how bad, wrong and confused his “review” is of my position or of the PCE.

The reality is that the electronic text does represent printed Bibles from Cambridge, and specifically, those designated PCE by the twelve tests.

Ross is now either highly confused because what he is saying is just not factual. He refers to pages 11 and 12 of my Century book, which says the opposite of what he is saying.

CONCLUSION

Ross has tried to use AI in his work, and also his pals to help look into the matter, but it just isn’t what they think. The so-called logical issues they have come up with are based on misinterpretations.

Now, obviously, on the best intentions and best information, the question about who edited the PCE to start with, and when, has become more clear. But it is not certain. What is important is that I have been honest and public in what I have done.

By this time in 2026, having written Vintage Bibles and A Century of the PCE, my knowledge on the history of the PCE and Cambridge has become a lot more than what I knew in 2023. But everything learned has not undermined the PCE in any way.

I understand that Ross could wish to say that I, in fact, made the PCE itself (like another Blayney?), which I didn’t since it already existed more than 100 years ago. So, he could, if he was going to honestly appraise the situation, say:

I recognise that Bible Protector drew on a plethora of agreeing editions of the KJB from the 20^th century and was wholly in line with normal and capable copy-editing techniques, that he weighed correctly based on Cambridge printed KJBs themselves, and only then other relevant sources, such as Collins PCEs, 1769-following editions and 1611, that he also showed in line with a wider lens the Geneva, Bishops’, Scrivener, Revised, 1911 Wright 1611 and Norton for comparison, and that his one innovation appears to have been already done by David Norton himself. Therefore, what is called the PCE (as in the electronic text) is fairly a representation as a standard edition of the 20^th century Cambridge KJV Bibles, and it is perfectly legitimate.

He could also honestly say, Taking the PCE on its own, I am fine if we agree to use it as a point of standard reference in an ordinary sense, especially going forward into the future. I personally disagree with Verschuur on some aspects of his theology, view of Bible prophecy, but that is no more relevant than as much as my views differ to Dr Blayney’s, Dr Mede’s, Lancelot Andrews’, Miles Smith’s or King James Stuart I of Great Britain’s as well.

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Cor. 14:33).

[This article has been expanded in the following few days since it was first published.]

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.