Category Archives: Review

Answering Alan O’Reilly

Alan O’Reilly is one of those obscure people who actually sort of believes that the 1769 Edition of the KJB itself is the perfect Word of God. He states, “It took millennia for God to perfect it, the task not being finalised until Dr Benjamin Blayney’s AV1611 Edition of 1769 but Final Authority is and always will be the 1611 Authorised English Holy Bible”.

Except, he realises that there a few small issues with the 1769, so he has to encompass all editions, like Oxford, London, Cambridge Concord, PCE, etc., in other words, he is clumsily trying to tell us that he supports the 1769 family.

He says that his word/Scripture from God is “the 1611 Holy Bible in its current bona fide perfected editions that follow Dr Blayney’s 1769 Oxford Edition. With the understanding that perfection does not mean verbatim, the Cambridge Cameo and Cambridge Concord Editions are two such perfected editions even though they differ in a number of minuscule aspects from each other and from the 1769 Oxford Edition.”

As you can see, he can’t actually have the 1769 as his final standard because he knows the Cambridge Concord and the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) came after it and that they all differ to each other!

So he refers to the “book of the LORD” and is talking about perfection, but actually cannot define exactly where the exact words are… this is because he has confused the concept of version and translation with Edition (let alone setting). What he doesn’t get is that the Book of the Lord is first of all the Scripture itself, and then it is the version and translation of the King James Bible. Quite separate to that agreed truth, we have to see that we want a properly edited form of the King James Bible. Yes, Blayney’s work is good, but it certainly is not precisely perfect editing.

The Blayney Bible of 1769 is perfect in as much as the version and translation of 1611 is perfect. So that’s not the perfect we need to be talking about. We need to know what actually is correct right down to the very words and spellings. Well, Mr O’Reilly can’t tell us that, because he is busy with his arms wide saying all the editions which follow from 1769 and their little differences here and there. It seems like there is a pantheon.

He then tries to say that Dr Blayney’s 1769 Oxford Edition is “the standard edition for current bona fide perfected editions”. But how can a standard precede what came after it which is perfected? Isn’t it, as the translators of 1611 themselves stated,

“Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us”?

Well, we know that the PCE is better than the 1769.

Mr O’Reilly then takes the 12 tests to identify the PCE and analyses them in comparison to the 1769. That’s really not how the tests are to be used, as there are lists available from my website which give a more comprehensive list of differences between the PCE and 1769, and also I have a list comparing the PCE with the Cambridge text that was being printed prior to it. (As well as information on the PCE versus the Concord.)

Just using the 12 tests method, he concludes that the PCE follows the 1769 four times and restores 1611 readings eight times. This is an unscientific methodology, seeing as the PCE as a whole is like a Cambridge form of the 1769 with a few corrections, which mathematically would make it probably more than 99.99% the same as the 1769 Edition.

Mr O’Reilly then makes another kindergarten level statement, writing, “The Cambridge Cameo and PCE Pure Cambridge Edition match for all 12 readings.” If he bothered to understand what the PCE is, he would know that (a.) the PCE has been printed in many editions including the Cameo for many years, (b.) when I made the electronic text of the PCE I extensively consulted a 1938 Cameo and (c.) the Cameo of today is not PCE.

So then, Mr O’Reilly has to admit that he accepts, “the 1769 Oxford and bona fide post-1769 Editions”. Well, that is a step towards the PCE, but the problem is he is keeping his arms wide, so he wants to accept the Concord as right as well, even though the PCE and the Concord are not the same!

He then tries to explain what he calls “PCE onlyism”. He says, “Insistence on the PCE as exclusively the perfect AV1611 comes from a certain Matthew Verschuur in 2007. … He has a useful link to the PCE Text as a PDF but he also lists what I suggest that we can take as his perception of the major differences between the PCE and other AV1611 Editions that don’t follow it 100%.”

So far, what he has tried to do is minimise any of the real differences between 1769 and the PCE, or any real differences between the PCE and the Concord. He wants to keep his arms wide, and redefine what “perfect” or probably words like “exact” or “pure edition” mean.

But notice he introduces the concept that I am one who insists that the PCE is the exclusively perfect AV1611. This of course is imprecise. As I have said many times, the version-text-readings of 1611 and the translation of 1611 are right. That version and that translation is there in 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1769 and even the Concord Edition… No, as we see, Mr O’Reilly misunderstands my position and seems to imply as if I were saying that the PCE alone is the Word of God and nothing else. Actually, I am saying that only out of editions, there is one perfect Edition.

But because Mr O’Reilly doesn’t understand that, he doesn’t seem to have a perfect, exact or final edition, but his arms are wide and he accepts a group of editions without drilling down to where there are important differences in them.

His view is that the differences between the PCE and say that Concord, or the 1769, are “actually minuscule with no effect on meaning.” Remember he is looking at the 12 tests of the PCE here, so they are not the lists I have made showing notable differences between the Concord and the PCE.

According to Mr O’Reilly, the difference between “spirit” and “Spirit” in Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8 are apparently no problem to him, bizarrely, he says, “both readings are correct because each of those scriptures refers to a Spirit-filled man”. While it is true that these verses are referring to people with the Spirit, what is distinct is that the use of the lower case “spirit” tells us it is the Spirit’s knowledge in the human, which information you don’t get if you have just “Spirit”.

Is Mr O’Reilly really going to suggest that we need to know both editions on this point, because he is implying you need both renderings to get the full information, and such a view is both ridiculous and the very same approach as modernists.

No, what we would need is a perfect presentation of a perfect Book which exclusively shows the truth, which is what the PCE does for us. We see “spirit” and that is the information we need. The contradictory or differing information of “Spirit” is confusion and implies that there is no “one word from God” or one to the letter reliable edition.

But Mr O’Reilly calls the PCE view “fraudulent”. Why? Because of some other unrelated accusation. Apparently “PCE onlyists like Verschuur are no different from other Nicolaitans … trying to lord themselves over ‘the body of Christ’”. That’s a wild accusation of course, that comes completely out of left field.

So now the argument is not about why “spirit” is correct (true), or why “spirit” and “Spirit” are both correct (false), but rather an entirely different view, that somehow a boogey-man like me is saying you can only use one edition as everything else is not right (false!). The fact is I am not saying that and I have even said things to such opposite effect as “the Vulgate is the word of God for people who only know Latin”! So then, one questions why I am such an apparently bad person.

Maybe Mr O’Reilly feels lorded over that the PCE is a correct edition (which of course he willingly won’t admit) but doesn’t like the messenger. So then he has to communistically keep his arms wide and say all editions are right.

Well, it does get that nonsensical. Listen to his ultimate schizophrenic thinking:

“This writer’s view is that the differences listed … are less significant than ‘ye’ Jeremiah 34:16, Cambridge editions and ‘he’ Jeremiah 34:16, Oxford editions. Dr Ruckman has shown that both readings are correct and, as indicated, the supposed difference is ‘a thing of nought.’”

No, “ye” and “he” are two different words with two different meanings. There is no way possible that these two words are both right or mean the same thing, or don’t matter, or is a nothing… if jots and tittles matter, and they do, then a “ye” and a “he” difference must be resolved.

He says, concerning “and” or “or” in Joshua 19:2 that “The variant readings are both correct.” Anyone knows that “and” and “or” are two different logical parameters! They do not mean that same thing, they do not express the same meaning.

He says, concerning the difference at 2 Chronicles 33:19, “The variant readings are both correct.” Variant? If variant, varying from what standard? How can a variation be correct? It has to be one or the other, not both.

Even though “farther” or “further” are two different words, which has been shown from the Oxford English Dictionary itself, he claims they “are interchangeable. The variant readings are both correct.”

He says that when comparing the Oxford with the Cambridge that whether it is “son of David” or “Son of David” apparently it doesn’t matter, “the difference is inconsequential” …

That is all opinion, that is just arbitrarily saying two things are both correct when two different things are not the same!

With his re-definition of my beliefs and his label of “PCE onlyism” he says, “The above notwithstanding, given the potential discouragement to genuine Bible believers that PCE onlyism could cause, it is wise to apply Song of Solomon 2:15 ‘Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.’”

Let us weigh the matter properly. We need to have an exact knowledge of the very words of God. We cannot say that variations are equally true. One word is not the same as another.

Therefore this pathetic attempt to summon the hounds to destroy the little foxes is an utterly ridiculous analogy.

And “Nicolaitans” is the PCE spelling, the standard, unsurprisingly Mr O’ Reilly didn’t use the 1769 and Oxford spelling “Nicolaitanes”. That’s because there really is a standard Edition, and it also seems that God has supplied Mr O’Reilly a Cameo to use.

KJB words not dying: Mark Ward countered

UPDATE. After this article was published, I was contacted by the King James Bible onlyist Mark Ward mentioned, who gave me an account of his conversation with Mark Ward, and explained his views, which differed significantly to how Mark Ward reported the conversation. I have therefore edited this article to reflect this further information.

In a propaganda piece (a youtube video dated 26/1/24), Mark Ward openly argues and states that the King James Bible is maybe 5 to 8% unintelligible. He shows that this number is not strictly the case, but gives the general impression that the King James Bible is to some degree, apparently, containing misunderstood, obsolete, dead and unintelligible words.

To bolster his propaganda, and to justify his “ministry”, he speaks about some dialogue he had with a certain King James Bible onlyist, though Ward misrepresents him as being a “Textus Receptus onlyist” for propaganda reasons.

(And, with his mildly entertaining manner, semi-professional videography and dorky attempt at nerdiness, his propaganda should be considered dangerous.)

The way Mark Ward presents it, naïve TROs are buying into his propaganda. The potential for this to be the case induces us to sound an alarm.

Mark Ward reported that he had a discussion with this King James Bible-supporting young person about their views on the eventual alleged need to edit, update or retranslate the KJB. Remember, Mark Ward already thinks the KJB is maybe 5% misunderstood, so with a purely naturalistic view of the world, one day apparently the KJB will need to be changed.

Mark Ward is taking on a kind of a role of being a “prophet” by estimating the change will be needed at some point, it would seem the thinking is maybe in 150 years, but who knows with these people, they’d probably be saying it should be a lot sooner.

The KJB will never be unintelligible, it is inconceivable that it would be, and there will not be any need for an update/change in so many hundreds of years.

According to Mark Ward’s account, he then says that his strawman “TRO” was volunteering to even change the KJB himself, if it was even allegedly so many percent “unintelligible”, though laughably knew no Hebrew or Greek, and would use Strongs Concordance (the lexicon part) to do the work.

It seems however that Mark Ward’s account of this conversation differs significantly to what the King James Bible supporter says he actually said.

As to some amateurish attempt to update the KJB, anyone who understands about this area will know that Strongs is completely subjective. If Strongs suggests a meaning for a Hebrew or Greek word, that meaning is as good (i.e. as poor as) a modern translation. Strongs’ work is often in conflict with the KJB, and since Strong himself was influenced by modernism, it is obvious that using his definitions would be inaccurate anyway.

Further, if English is allegedly changing, in this fictional hypothesis that the KJB’s wording is becoming harder to understand by the year, wouldn’t that mean that the English used in Strongs would be equally out of date?

Any supporter of the King James Bible who thinks that the KJB to be somewhat (5%) unintelligible, or will become so one day in so many decades, is wrong. This is because there simply are no “dead words”, “obsolete words” or any percentage of “unintelligible” words in the KJB.

I mean, we know that there are religious concepts that need to be taught, that there are hard and dark teachings in the Bible, but this is different to the concept that the actual language of the KJB is dying. The KJB’s words are NOT dying.

This is because the KJB’s English, which is Biblical English, is like a special religious language. This religious English is special as it is used to describe concepts, which are doctrines. Therefore, any doctrine, say “propitiation” or “sanctification”, is itself also relying on the fact that certain concepts are attached to certain English words. And the entirety of the KJB with its “ands” and punctuation marks (jots and tittles too) should be approached like this, as if it is a sacred language, a special language, because it is: it was designed by Providence to convey the very accurate truths of the Scripture to the whole world in the last days.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” (Hebrews 4:12a).

Preservation is not just in transmission of the Scripture from the past to the present, but is keeping it in the present.

You see, English is not a product of accidents, nor is its future mere random chaos.

Mark Ward used to say, “Usage determines meaning”. Such a view was the very opposite of a (Platonic) Christian presuppositional view that in fact God predetermined words, concepts, meanings. Instead, Mark Ward aligned to the opposite view, that (ultimately) the King James Bible is just a product of its times and the naturalistic tides of deistic history. God apparently was not guiding English, nor the passage of the Scripture to the world via English, nor raising up the succession of Reformers, Puritans, Evangelicals and today’s pygmies who stand on giants’ shoulders.

Mark Ward’s evolutionary view of language seems no different to the evolutionary/atheistic view of languages. But he has noticeably quietened on that front.

Instead, we believe that the English-using people, the success of English-speaking nations and the destiny of the English language with the gospel for the world is all designed by God. We are living in a providential continuum. (What a privilege it is to understand this and to cooperate with God’s Spirit, yet on the other hand, what a terror it is that the sword now dangles so precipitously over the likes of Mark Ward!)

Here are several reasons why the KJB is fully intelligible, and why it will be so into the future.

First, the Oxford English Dictionary people said, as long as someone knows a word, its meaning and use, it is not dead. “Our own words never become obsolete … Even after we cease to use a word, the memory of it survives, and the word itself survives as a possibility; it is only when no one is left to whom its use is still possible, that the word is wholly dead … They are alive to some speakers, and dead to others”.

Now, as long as the KJB is being used, and its words known, then no word in it can be called “archaic”, “obsolete”, “dead”, etc. As the fact is, the KJB is in widespread and current use, and exists all around the place.

Someone could point the OED itself and say that is lists this or that word in the KJB as “obsolete” etc., but such labelling is itself incorrect. The OED is not infallible, it is not comprehensive, it is not a religious text and it is not strictly speaking the dictionary of Biblical English.

So then, this “Biblical English” differs to, yet remains conversant with, English.

There are KJB words out there all over the internet, and used in plenty of churches, so therefore no word’s meaning in the KJB is being lost, nor have they been lost.

To charge the KJB as being the repository of a growing list of “dead” words (i.e. unintelligible words) is wrong.

Another reason why the KJB is not dying is because of the role of the Holy Ghost, and teachers in the church, and the whole heritage of prior learning (library/internet), which is that we may learn and be taught words, concepts, meaning and knowledge, so again, no word KJB word is obsolete, lost, dead and/or unintelligible, nor will they be.

Importantly, the KJB was made in line with modern English, and the very print history KJB reflects the stabilising of English, to our present day. English, due to its global position, proliferation and its connection with technology, is ensuring that English in the bigger sense is not varying, evolving or dialectising to the point of incompatibility with the KJB. Instead, the global rise and diverse sectors where English is being used are providential factors keeping English within the aegis of God’s divine English in the KJB. (As language serves God, then English is servant to the Word of God.)

So English is being kept in a stable place, meaning that the words of the KJB are still relevant and intelligible. God is in control, and it is ironic that a Reformed guy like Mark Ward does not have a view about God’s special care and sovereignty guiding English and the KJB, instead, his view seems to be linked to a naturalistic view of language “evolution” that atheists and infidels teach.

As for the hypothetical “TRO” that Mark Ward boasted about, they both would do well to read Edward Hills’ books and extend that logic in such a way as I have outlined. (As for the real person Mark Ward dialogued with, I suspect that Mark Ward misrepresented him for his own ends.)

“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zephaniah 3:9).

Pure Cambridge Edition not debunked, despite the opinion of a tiny handful

Someone made a video attempting to debunk the Pure Cambridge Edition. They and commenters underneath the video on youtube made the following statements.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

All these claims are answerable, refutable and really they are wrong claims.

Here are the answers.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

ANSWER ONE. The King James Bible as a version and a translation is pure, so obviously all editions of that version and translation are pure, because all editions have the same text and translation! The person here is mixing up the concept of editorial purity with textual and translational purity. Editorial purity is about having no typographical errors and having standard spellings, etc.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

ANSWER TWO. The person here is really objecting to the idea that one spelling is insisted upon, when places like this have had variations within the history of the KJB. Some editions have “Gaba” at Nehemiah 7:30, others have “Geba”. Also, in 1626 a London edition had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, and so did a 1750 London edition. Going to the Hebrew to look at these places is subjective (which Hebrew anyway?). And since editorial work includes regularisation, this is the likely reason why both Ezra and Nehemiah have “Geba”. See also

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

ANSWER THREE. I’ve never claimed that either the making of the KJB nor its editing was done by inspiration. And like the maker of the video, I agree that words in italics are inspired words, but I’ve never said that the italics were placed by inspiration. I do, of course, think that the italics as we now have them are rightly placed in that font style.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

ANSWER FOUR. The italics of 1611 have been edited over the years. But attacking 1 John 2:23’s italics would be to attack Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition and many others. The fact is that the italics have been improved after 1611, which exhibited various editorial issues and mistakes in places, so of course we should understand that many editions to this day match 1769 and the PCE at this place.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

ANSWER FIVE. The word “and” editorially belongs in Exodus 23:23, it was there in 1612, 1616 and the 1629, it was there in italics in Cambridge’s editions from the 1830s. Various other editions did not have the word “and” there, it is true, but using the Hebrew to prove anything about this is misguided. Instead, we should trust that the word “and” is an implied sense in the Hebrew, and that’s why it is there in English, in italics. The PCE is not wrong, nor are other historical editions, to have this.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

ANSWER SIX. It is true that CUP has not used the wording “PCE” nor did it actually create the electronic documents on the bibleprotector website, BUT there were printings of the Bible with the word “Cambridge” on them, in Pica Antiqua (quarto), Turquoise 8vo, (New) Brevier 8vo, (Pitt) Minion, Cameo 16mo, Sapphire 16mo, Ruby 24mo and Ruby Amethyst — printed from around the late 1920s to 1985 — and these printings all had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, “and” (in italics) “the Hivites” at Exodus 23:23, “spirit” lower case at Acts 11:12; 11:28 and 1 John 5:8, etc. — and bearing the printer’s names of Walter Lewis and Brooke Crutchley. Do Cambridge University Press deny the existence of their own work? What were they changing in 1985 when they stated that they were changing 1 John 5:8 to “Spirit”? And while I said from the late 1920s, in fact, there are Cambridge Bibles from the World War One era that are almost PCEs, except for a few places, like having “spirit” when it should be “Spirit” at Mark 1:12. At some point under Walter Lewis those changes were made, leading to decades of an Edition that Cambridge should go back to printing today in all its offerings.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

ANSWER SEVEN. The word “spirit” was lower case in Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28 in 1769, before 1769, after 1769, in Cambridge printings through much of the 20th century before I was ever born, so obviously my Pentecostal “biases” had nothing to with that. Furthermore, there are many verses in all editions of the KJB that have the word “spirit” relating to the work of God and it is obviously nothing to do with to do with Pentecostalism or biases. This is just how many historical editions of the KJB read.

The fact is that I don’t invoke any specific Pentecostal doctrine or necessitate some Pentecostal practice to be able to know and understand why the word “spirit” has been used in certain places throughout the KJB. And seeing as jots and tittles matter (jot and tittle are English words in the English dictionary that have English definitions) then it follows that the capital or lower case in God’s word is important, and that the PCE is presenting an editorial accurate form of the KJB.

Of course the Holy Ghost is directly involved when the word “spirit” is used in lower case in these examples, though it is about His effects and knowledge in the human heart. For a good overview read this short article:

IN CONCLUSION the PCE and its history have not been debunked, and the opinions of a small handful who are trying to say something is just mistaken. The PCE is a valid edition of the KJB, and the PCE is an accurate, acceptable and proper standard to represent the KJB now and into the future.

We have gone beyond 1769

With an array of issues in 1769, like “Beer-sheba, Sheba” in Joshua 19:2, or missing out on part of a verse in Revelation 18:22, we are grateful we have a better edition that gets everything right, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition.

We don’t use a 1769. No one does. Well, unless you’d use these ones. But you shouldn’t, you should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Here are two examples of a 1769 Folio:

Mark Ward attacks English

Mark Ward seems to have turned his attention somewhat to both the idea of translating the Bible into every dialect, and yet in arguing that, is also venomously arguing that English is not special, there is no perfect English translation, etc.

I am sure God has a lot to do with English. Interestingly, for someone who claims usage determines meaning, there is a blindness to English usage for the Gospel determines or indicates God’s providence.

That God both made and designed all languages, yet somehow God has not designed English in any special way any more than any other, does that make sense? The same God who designs is the one who can use one above another. The clay cannot backchat the potter.

Providentially, we see both the wide use of English and that we have such a good Bible, the King James Version. How much better it is that we have English as a means of reaching more people everywhere, and how much benefit is it for this to occur, both naturally (i.e. for commerce) and spiritually (allowing others access to the best Bible in the world)? English has been used of God, and that the KJB is perfect, are not statements based on arrogance, but providence and, more importantly, Bible doctrine. Yes, there are verses and passages which point to these concepts. (I know full well that the modernistic methods of hermeneutics will of course seek to dissuade of this truth.)

And yes, while it has been laudable to bring translations and Bible teaching to the various nations and tribes in the past, it is true that the best Bible and the BEST THEOLOGY exists in English. So the nations of today into the future are being served better by this. God does choose instruments. You know very well that Jacob was preferred over Esau. So likewise the Jacobian Bible over the pride and so called “wisdom” of Edom.

Just because God used Hebrew, Syriack and Greek once upon a time does not mean or require continuous favour with those languages or manuscripts. No Scripture teaches that, and Providence itself shows the opposite. The Reformation was in fact all about translation, not retention of Latin or Greek, for then would not the Gospel preaching have been accompanied by teaching Greek and Latin etc. to the masses? But now those former things are left behind, they have waxed old and are ready to vanish away. What was before in multiple languages of Hebrew and Greek is now in one, English. The twain are made one, better than what we had before. The God who is able to speak any language (Acts 2) is also the God who has one message to be made known to the nations, and, as it says in Zephaniah 3:9, turn them to A pure language. Again, while Isaiah 28:11 is taken (as by Paul) to speak of the speaking in other tongues, it is also shown that the same passage says ANOTHER tongue, meaning one language. Ironically, the Pentecostal movement today both has arisen and perpetuates from one language group, being the English-speakers.

Also seeing that the languages of Hebrew, Syriack and Greek (and those places in the Gospel where it is clearly Hebrew not alleged “Aramaic”) are not spoken today, how more obvious is it to have God’s words in a living, present and powerful language: English?

Mark Ward admits, “You have to encounter God’s Word in translation.” And there is one key, blessed language: Biblical English. (This is not to say that other translations are evil, no, the God of grace has allowed imperfect translations, and that which has been helpful for the various non-English speakers of the world is not to be anathemised though the progress towards the universality of one English Bible as a final standard is coming to pass.)

To argue that other language groups have “claims on our conscience” is a perverted doctrine. Yes, the Gospel should go to nations, but that should not be a reason to disparage or wear a black arm band about English. That’s what woke people do, they apologise for English, they try to “revive” neo-Hebrew, Welsh or Australian Aboriginal constructs in line with an antichristian anti-English view. So to call God’s plan of the excellence of the Bible and the spreading of the Gospel in English as “arrogance” or “chauvinism” is surely misguided. As if to prove the common foundation of Infidelity behind wokery and this attack on English, we have Mark Ward suggesting something that sounds suspiciously like open borders and promoting illegal immigrants. This indicative leftwing ideology is antithetical to what is found in the proper interpretation of Scripture.

We note the reality of foreigners learning English, and the education of people who interact with Biblical English (the KJB), yet Mark Ward, driven by something (?!) admits that such views make him angry! All families/nations of the Earth are to be blessed, and Christ Jesus coming to the nations today is going to be a unitary Gospel which has, under God, its highest expression in the English-speaking peoples. This is evident both historically with missionary endeavours in recent centuries, but is also evident as far as what is the Holy Ghost destiny evident (or “manifest”) among us. Mark Ward’s call to arms to try to topple the supremacy of English is an attempt to attack the power of the truth in English in its world reaching power.

Reviewing Mark Ward’s article, “Borrowing from the KJV Bank and Trust”.

The article “Borrowing from the KJV Bank and Trust” by Mark Ward is full of all kinds of problems. For example, the major thematic framework Ward uses to talk about the King James Bible is by Tolkien’s ring analogy, and not by a Biblical analogy. (The title of the “bank and trust” is mixed metaphor to this theme.) As usual, Ward does what Burgon accused the Infidels in his day of doing, which is, to treat the Bible as just a natural, human book, in this case, Ward views the King James Bible’s existence as being a natural, human phenomenon. He deliberately doesn’t recognise any providences, prophecies or anything else about its coming to be or its future, and in fact mocks the idea of supernaturalism altogether as if that angels sang as the KJB came abroad in some beatific birth. The KJB, in Ward’s view, is rhetorically the product of realpolitik, gritty urban chance and human contrivance. Of course the KJB appeared in a time of opposition — opposition from the Romanists, and opposition from the hyper-Puritans — but that is not to be analogous to the oppositions to modern translations (given that, of course, people will be inclined perhaps to resist something because it is new — but this is an entirely natural argument). And seeing that Ward thinks that things must be won by parley, it seems he is actually advocating a strange doctrine of “victory thorough adversity”, or to paraphrase it according to Heraclitus, “War is the parent of all things, some translations are made commercial successes, and some are critically acclaimed though parley.” Rather, the parley is for the truth of the KJB to stamp out opposition, just as the KJB was said to be able to do to others in 1611, so likewise it would equally best newfangled works of today. Ward then says that the KJB is the LXX of today, as if the KJB, which was the product of much deliberation and many former works, is the same as the LXX which was made hastily as the first ever translation. And so he misuses the analogy, for the KJB translators never thought that their work was just another LXX (unsound, needing much correction, etc.). No, that view is an entirely modern, unhistorical one, as championed by the likes of Mark Ward. Many indications from the KJB’s dedication and preface show that the KJB men thought that their work was right and proper, not needing intermeddling. The major problem is that Ward thinks that the increase of knowledge of these days must therefore require the modern man to leave the KJB behind. This principle of Infidelity is actually rejected in Scripture, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7). For, once having accomplished the pinnacle, no new things can ever exceed it. Mark Ward also ignorantly, and one would almost have to say deceptively, claims that the KJB in most common use today is from 1769. This is simply not the case in any way. In fact, the editions of the KJB in use today derive from editorial work AFTER 1769, so that the standard Oxford edition available today comes from or after Queen Victoria’s time. Also, this wrongly implies that somehow the text and translation of 1611 is different to 1769 or today, which is simply not the case. The most common Cambridge editions today come from the twentieth century. Ultimately, Mark Ward argues for a plurality where the KJB is “tolerated” as one of many translations, and should be recognised (seemingly reluctantly) for its success, dominance and historical place. It is pretty obvious that Mark Ward is making a case not to annihilate the KJB. But since when has that even been an option? Since when has there been a genocidal intent against it? (In this he bewrays the true intention of his side in this “parley”.) He seeks to impose a plurality, as if he is saying, “Oh, you can have the KJB, but as long as you accept all these other translations as well — the KJB is just one of many.” In that view, the KJB cannot be removed but it can be destroyed by being made less special. Mark Ward would do better to apply his skills in the mathom house to the language, philological history and provenance of the modern English Red Book translation, which ironically, has its best text in a single volume as published by HarperCollins.

Answering David O’Steen

David O’Steen is an American preacher and author at Hope Bible Church in Jackson, Georgia.

Recently he made a video talking about the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible. Some of his basic facts were generally right, but he made some incorrect statements which we will go through.

David knows that there are typographical errors in the history of the printing of the King James Bible and that spellings have altered since 1611. However, he implies that the Pure Cambridge Edition position is pedantry. His belief is that all variations in editions are concurrently true.

Further, one reason why David is very suspicious of the Pure Cambridge Edition is because I am a Pentecostal from Australia. It is obviously a bitter pill that I am Pentecostal because there is a huge divide between King James Bible only Baptists and Pentecostals in the United States.

Note that I did not invent the Pure Cambridge Edition, it was printed by Cambridge for decades in millions of copies before I was ever born.

David says that whether the word is spelt (or, spelled as they say in the USA), “ancle” or “ankle” it means that same thing. The answer to that is simple. Yes, it does have the same meaning, but we are talking about exactness and God’s use of English, not how we use English in our own usage.

Well of course no doctrinal collapse or whatever is there just because of a “c” or a “k”. That’s not the point, the point is that we should stick with God’s way, not our own heads. We should not diminish ought from the Scripture.

The Pure Cambridge Edition, which arose maybe in the late 1920s, is clearly called “pure” in relation to editorial standards. That is, in relation to typographical accuracy, a deliberate scheme of spelling, etc.

What David wrongly does is conflate the editorial issue with the translation and textual/version issue. There are three levels here: TEXT, TRANSLATION and EDITION. The first two go together: the correct TEXT is the King James Bible, gathered from the TR variants and set forth in 1611 and beyond. The correct English TRANSLATION is the King James Bible which was made in 1611, improving upon the Bishops’, Geneva and other translations. The same TEXT and TRANSLATION have been printed throughout all normal and proper editions. Thus, the Oxford Edition is indeed the pure and correct TEXT and TRANSLATION. However, due to some editorial variations and typographical errors, the Oxford Edition is not quite as pure EDITIONALLY as the PCE is.

David knows that the variations in editions are not intentional corruptions of the King James Bible itself, but have arisen through circumstance, accident, poor editorial decisions, etc. However, editorial variations are still deliberate. Surely the editors at Oxford knew that the Cambridge editions were spelling some words differently and had some tiny variations in wording. But the Oxford people stuck to their tradition. Having said that, the potential for misreading or for error in the detail is therefore possible with an edition that might have typos, misspelled words and worse, editorial changes that are actually wrong. These wrong changes are not going so far as to change the translation or version itself, but still pose impediments as to what is correct, precisely and accurately.

No one should think that a Bible with typos is as good as a Bible with no typos. No, it is proper and godly and orderly to get rid of the typos.

David makes a comment about some young Christian who gets a King James Bible and it happens not to be PCE. Let me say right now that God’s grace is sufficient. I don’t think anyone is (or should be) ripping that Thomas Nelson or whatever out of his hand or calling other editions the work of Satan or whatever. The PCE position is a nuanced one, whereas often a Christian would be so ignorant that he would think that getting an ESV was fine. If the Body of Christ was limited to only King James Bible users or PCE supporters rather than all born again believers today, such a distinction measure at this time would be a damnable heresy. I would to God a Christian read an Oxford KJB rather than the NIV. But there is a better thing than just “any edition” of the KJB.

David then looks at the list of 12 test places of the editions of the King James Bible (the list is on He seems to think that the PCE issue is one where we are saying that there are deliberate and evil corruptions, and that unless you have a PCE, your King James Bible is corrupt. This is clearly NOT what is being said by me on my website or any video I make. Purity is about refinement, not about saying that things less pure are the work of Satan. (The Geneva Version was less pure than the KJB, but the Geneva Version was not the work of Satan.)

David tries to argue that the differences in the tests don’t matter. But they do. Now he rightly says that things to do with the Holy Ghost are not always with a capital “S” on the word “Spirit”.

But then he makes a huge blunder. David says he thinks that I am saying that the word “spirit” (such as in Acts 11:28 or 1 John 5:8) is not something to do with the Holy Ghost. This is simply not true. It is evident that while David has seen that there are variations in these things from 1611 and that the word “spirit” is plenty of times lower case today, he has not understood anything about what I have explained on this issue.

(It is very easy to go online and find the basic information and some semi-negative report about me being a Pentecostal and then just base a flawed conclusion on these points.)

I have quite extensively talked about the “spirit” case issue, including how the Holy Ghost is meant or his work, and why it is precise to use lower case “s” on the word “spirit” on occasions.

The problem is that David is taking a sort of ultra-simplistic approach that basically it doesn’t matter whether it is capital or lower case, because it just must mean the Holy Ghost. But the case difference gives nuance and is entirely deliberate. Editors like Blayney in 1769 knew full well to capitalise deity or that usage should be editorially consistent, yet these learned editors deliberately chose to have the word “spirit” lower case in places, because as we are able to discover today, there is a meaning difference in the case usage.

Laughably, David uses the Donald Waite argument that since Hebrew or Greek did not use the case of letters, therefore it mustn’t be an issue in English either.

By David’s logic, then, whether “god” or “God” doesn’t matter. And “Word” and “word” don’t matter either. Why not then have “dAVID” if letters don’t matter?

And likewise, if spelling is no issue, why not today have “Iesus Christ” or “Sonne of God”?

No, rather, worlds of meaning hang on capital and lower case. Just look at the issue around the word “god” in the story of the fiery furnace.

David brings up examples where one place has “Spirit” or “spirit”, and whether another nearby or parallel passage as the other. These are exact things, and I explain them on my website. The issue is not about fake uniformity, but about what exactly the word “spirit” means as is different to “Spirit”. I discuss this in detail elsewhere, but it seems to me that David completely has ignored this, and instead tried to draw his own negative conclusions about me and reinforce his own belief that variations in editions don’t matter.

David thinks the difference of “spirit” or “Spirit” both being present, somehow must be an “inconsistency”. Not so, but rather precision. I make points about this issue on my website and in youtube videos.

Now, it gets more and more ridiculous with David when he tries to justify the two different wordings. He begins the mental gymnastics by trying to say that both the “or” and “and” readings of Joshua 19:2 are correct.

A quick question should be asked, seeing as God inspired and gave one word, how can it now be two? How is it that now all the “legitimate” variations in editions are all to be accounted as correct and true? No, the whole KJBO argument versus modern versions is that only one set of words is right, so obviously the same must be with editions. Only “and” or “or” can be correct at Joshua 19:2. It is pretty easy to see that the word “or” is correct because Sheba has two names, whereas saying “and” creates a distinction which then messes up the total number of towns listed in that passage.

In another example in Jeremiah 34:16, the PCE says “ye” and the Oxford says “he”. Where each word has a different meaning, and worlds of meaning hang on the grammar or words, to say “ye” is not to say “he”. There is different information conveyed by these word differences. They are not concurrently true.

In another example, David tries to reconcile “flieth” and “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16. But these are two different words. David then gives this crazy explanation that people are saying that the cankerworm could fly. (In fact, the cankerworm does change to a flying insect, e.g. a moth.) He then strains to explain how both could be correct. But once again, seeing as each word has a different meaning, and meaning itself must be precise with God’s words, the “additional information” (basically an “advanced revelation”) that David tries to concoct by adding the “fleeing” to the “flying” is incorrect, since it can and should be only one or the other. (Otherwise would not God have said in Hebrew that the cankerworm flees and flies away?) David says, “the point is the same” … but how can flying and fleeing be the same? He really knows this because he then tellingly says that if you think it is one or the other, write what you think it is in the margin. And now we see that David has come to where the modernists are at: deciding God’s truth for themselves, deciding what variation they would like to choose as their preferred one. He says don’t throw the Bible away because it hasn’t got it the way you think it should be. Maybe stick with the PCE and that’s it after all!

In the example of “further” and “farther”, David clearly has no knowledge from either the dictionary or myself on the clear and distinct meaning of these two words. They are not synonyms. They are not complementary information. No, it has to be one or the other, and the PCE is right with “further” at the place in Matthew. When elsewhere the PCE has “farther” that also is correct in its place.

In the example of “bewray” and “betray”, David knows nothing about these being two completely different words with completely different meanings. But David is wanting to make all variations concurrently correct … is he suggesting maybe that we should get a KJB that has all the variations present, maybe as marginal notes, so that only then we can have the “full” picture?

David rightly says that the 1769 is just as much KJB as the 1611 Edition. Yes, that is my point too. But we are not talking about the VERSION-TEXT or the TRANSLATION, we are talking about eliminating typos, using proper (Biblical) spelling and having editorially resolved what is the right word/spelling in every place.

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

Every word means every single word, not all the variations. God’s mouth did not produce variations like, “bewray” AND “betray” at a place. No, God’s word must one or the other.

David falsely says, “Don’t let a Pentecostal from Australia undermine your faith.” This is blatantly wrong! I am encouraging faith in God’s words. Did I ever once go to the USA and tear up Oxford Editions? No, I am about encouraging faith in God’s words, and that we should have and know them.

I have plainly said that the Oxford has the pure and perfect text and translation, because the KJB is the right VERSION and the right TRANSLATION.

But, it is Biblically consistent to have the proper words and their meanings in a proper edition.

“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:20, 21).

Of course, as David says, no one should be getting hung up. I know some people are like, “This Bible’s printer missed a full stop here” which if taken to an extreme can be unbalanced and sort of so-called mental illness territory. No, the Pure Cambridge Edition is one for the Church, to have a consistent edition, to have precision to the words, a proper tradition, a uniformity in usage.

Any true believer in Christ should be seeing that the common heritage of God’s words is important. The issue being discussed here is not about Pentecostalism or Independent Fundamentalist Dispensationalism, it is about simply whether we believe God’s words and believe that God has provided His words exactly and precisely, and that His providence and power is such as to ensure that we’ve had the King James Bible properly edited over the years and typographical errors resolved. If we know we have something right then it makes it impossible for the devil or anything to change even one jot or tittle in KJB on us.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32).


Information on the Spirit/spirit case issue:

David Daniels’ confusion about pure words


David Daniels, from Chick Publications, made a video (8 April 2021) where he discussed the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible. Daniels has made various good videos and his ministry has been generally helpful. He also wants to stick with the King James Bible, which is laudable.


Daniels begins by asking whether people should throw away their King James Bible if it is not a Pure Cambridge Edition.

My answer is that no one should be throwing out the King James Bible. Of course, we should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Would anyone use a book with typographical errors when they have another printing of that same book which doesn’t?

What Daniels does is confuse the purity of the version and translation of the KJB and then apply that standard as if someone is saying that the KJB printed by Oxford or wherever is not a pure version and translation. No, the King James Bible is a pure version and translation in all its normal historical editions.

Typographical errors don’t invalidate the version and translation of the KJB. But you wouldn’t want to use unstandard and bad printing when you have the option for good. The word “pure” in “Pure Cambridge Edition” is talking about correct spelling and typography. It is a different measure or kind of purity than when talking about one version/translation versus another.


Daniels says that the Pure Cambridge Edition is one that matches up to 12 particular verses having particular lettering or spelling. While this is fine for detecting what is a Pure Cambridge Edition, the reality is that there are whole lists of specific differences between current editions. See

There are many editions of the King James Bible since 1611, and so on analysis there are many variations is spellings, punctuation and so on. And if you start by comparing the first King James Bible ever printed in 1611 with any other edition, you will always find variations here and there.

None of these are causing the loss of God’s words, but obviously correcting typographical errors and the standardising of the spelling and grammar has been a good thing.

There are a line of corrections from 1611, 1629, 1638 to 1769 and beyond. The Pure Cambridge Edition is an approximately 20th century correction of the Cambridge adaptation of the 1769 editorial corrections (which took place in the 1830s under Thomas Turton).


Daniels goes on to have a look at some of the examples, particularly around the fact that the Pure Cambridge Edition is getting the word “Spirit” right when it is capital or lower case. A difference in capital or lower case has a difference in meaning.

In fact, in general, changing a word in any document may change some sort of meaning. Not that the actual word of God is changed, but the potential for misunderstanding arising from an editorial inconsistency is the issue.

It is obvious we wouldn’t accept a typo like “Jesus” for “Judas” or vice versa.

Doctrines or doctrinal precision matters, and that is why words, lower case and capital matter.

Saying that the case of letters does not matter, or that because in Greek the Bible was written in all capitals (uncials) or all lower case (minuscules) … the Bible has been translated into English, and clearly capitals do matter.

Would Daniels accept a King James Bible printed without capitals? Would he accept one that always put “god” instead of “God”? I don’t think so.


Daniels is not understanding the differences in words, so when he comes to the examples of “flieth” versus “fleeth”, “further” versus “farther” and “bewray” versus “betray”, he thinks there is no real difference.

But there is. I have written about these before, and information is also in my booklet “Glistering Truths”.

Simply, the word “flieth” means both to flee and to fly away, as the cankerworm turns into a flying insect. Whereas “fleeth” does not have the meaning about the flying insect.

Again, “further” means more far, whereas “farther” simply means a choice out of two options, the nearer and the farther. Correct grammar dictates proper usage.

And as for “bewray” this is a word from Anglo-Saxon meaning to convey inadvertently. Whereas “betray” is from French, and means to trade for. Very evidently these are two different words with two different meanings.

Daniels needs to recognise that distinct words have distinct meanings. To ignore or deny this is simply anti-intellectualism.


Daniels said, rather strangely, that he wouldn’t use an edition called “pure”.

Would he use an edition with no name?

Would he use a mid-twentieth century printed Cambridge KJB?

Conversely, would he use a grossly misprinted edition? What if it was called “The Grossly Misprinted Edition”?

Many Christians who love and use the King James Bible have realised that words and letters do matter, accuracy matters, and there is everything good about everyone using the same edition and knowing that it has every editorial choice right.


The answers here address any concerns, clear misconceptions and really explain why it is good to use a particular standard edition of the King James Bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:10, 11

10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.