by Matthew Verschuur

This is a review and refutation of two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4QsEsEspKs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81OXcdQl62M

THEISTIC REALISM

Theistic Realism (i.e. Theistic Conceptual Realism) argues that truth exists in eternity, in the mind of God, and that everything is conceptually perfect there. This means that thought existed, and of course, when God speaks in Genesis 1, He has language to use. The key component of language is words. Words represent concepts. And since this is God’s use of words, this would be God’s use of exact words to mean exact concepts.

Further, God communicates to man, as He begins to do in Genesis 1 before men exist, yet He speaks and afterwards reveals the record of it, so that we see it by the writing of Moses, which we have this day, and so we can read or hear what God said.

When God spoke, He communicated the exact concepts He was conceiving and used specific words to convey those concepts.

In fact, we can be sure that God knew in eternity all about the creation, fall and salvation of mankind and the “Bible” message He was going to communicate to man to inform them of this salvation.

We also know that in the beginning when God created the heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1, that in Heaven He has a place there which we shall call the Heavenly Sanctuary, and that this has a book. This book is the Book of books, the perfect form, the Holy Scripture.

When we read in 1 John 5:7 (an heavily attacked verse) that God, now manifesting in three Nicaean persons of the Trinity, bare record in Heaven, we can see that this is a legal document, and that they, the members of the Godhead, are bearing record of the Holy Bible, the Book of books, in the sanctuary in Heaven, known in Psalm 40 as the volume of the book.

It is only proper that God revealed the contents of this Book of books in Heaven to believers on Earth. And so, piecemeal by piecemeal, the holy words were written by inspiration, over many centuries by many good men, which revealed below on Earth what was in the perfect form above.

And so, the same God who inspired also preserved textually, which is to say there was actually scattering and gathering. And there was also a preservation of the concepts of Scripture. Not by identical markings on the page, because at some point the Hebrew and Greek were being translated. So there was never this false notion of “verbatim identicality” which Bryan Ross cannot even explain (identical to what?), but there was rather the turning of the same concepts in one language to the concepts in another.

Now there are promises in the Scripture that in time there should be the exact words of God in Earth. Let us consider for a moment the Reformation English translations. Take one like the Tyndale or the Geneva, it was the Scripture, but it wasn’t exact, there are issues in its readings, its translation, etc. but not so much as to not make it the Word of God.

So then, when was the Text settled? It was settled with the King James Bible. And likewise the translation into English.

Now we know that the KJB men were not inspired, but acting in line with providence.

THE PLAIN PERFECTION

The question then arises as to where are the perfect words of God, since the Bible makes continual reference to “words”. Believers have been able to say that they believe that the King James Bible words are right, that they represent that words of the Autographs. But where is this perfect Word? At one time many years ago as I was thinking about these things, I thought maybe it could be the unknown master copy that was sent to the press in 1611, that this was sort of like a perfect form. But it is pretty obvious that the master copy written in pen of the KJB, which might have been a bit messy, certainly did not have standardised spelling, etc. Like the actual Autographs of Scripture, the print master of 1611 is lost because the whole process is ultimately based on the fact that the Scripture in Earth is reflecting that there is a perfect master copy in Heaven.

The fact is, all we see are imperfect copies in the original languages and imperfect former translations. We see the Text and the translation there in the first printing of 1611. But we don’t have perfect printing back then.

When I say perfect, I am not playing games by using the OED to (re)define the meaning, I mean actually perfect, immaculate, spotless, pristine, pure and precisely exact in this context. (The OED is a descriptive dictionary not a prescriptive one.)

We see a trend of editing in the King James Bible over the years, and we see the standardisation of the language, we see the correcting of press errors, we see spelling and grammar being adjusted to a proper format.

All of this shows that it was morally right that Blayney did what was necessary and edited the KJB. When I first interacted with Bryan making this point, he literally mocked me and his friends laughed me to scorn. They did not seem to comprehend that it was morally correct for Blayney to edit as an important work in the line of history of editing the KJB.

I actually don’t know why Ross mocked me for that, but it showed that Ross did not see a line of improvement from 1611 to the 20^th century in the editions of the KJB. In a way it seems to me like a kind of anti-authoritarian approach, that they could not have God working in history towards a standard, because Ross wants to allow for all these different editions which differ on various minor spellings and punctuation etc. to be acceptable without having to nail down that God would be working with a specific care for the editing.

In this, Ross does not seem to exemplify the same fear King James Bible supporters (going back to the Puritans) have spoken of when they have referred to trembling before the words and syllables of the Scripture.

“Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” (Isaiah 66:5).

Ross argues that the KJB can be giving the message of God and that this message can be accepted even if it is altered within parameters. For example, he would view the Geneva as fine, because it is different without “substantively” altering the words. While he seems to think that the KJB words are the best words out of options, he is open to a certain matrix of variation.

This looseness in the moorings of the KJB’s Text and translation is one thing, but it means then that he is loath to say that there is an edition which is exactly right or a standard or presenting the Text and translation in a acceptable fixed way.

It’s like arguing for a kind of libertarianism, to say “free choice of editions”. This doesn’t sit well with me and indicates potentially a small rebellious streak.

Words have meaning. Therefore, like law, words are important. And who wants to undermine the rigidity of the law? The devil himself. Therefore anything undermining the certainty of fixed concepts with precise language is likely to drift in a direction away from God.

THE VERBATIM INDENTICALITY STRAWMAN

Ross is also intellectually unfair in how he labels anyone who doesn’t have a “looseness” of possibilities (within paramaters) approach like him as being someone who is essentially like a Robotic Photocopier Machine adherent. He presents his views as a kind of King James Bible libertarianism while he labels those who believe in the literal Law of God as existing in a rigid fixed form as being promoters of something called “Verbatim Identicality”. What he is trying to say is that those who aren’t like him for the King James Bible must be saying that the KJB is Robotic Photocopier Machine copy of the original Autographs… or something.

If Ross’ enemies are believers in “Verbatim Identicality”, then what are they claiming “Verbatim Identicality” with? Clearly no one credible and normal is claiming that actually.

For example, I claim Conceptual Identity between the KJB, the Originals and the Heavenly Book. But where is Ross’ conceptual standard Bible, since he does not believe in absolute and finite accuracy of punctuation, spelling and so on?

You see, you need, for legal reasons, accuracy of words and punctuation. I am not a maths person, but in the maths universe 20 + 30 + 50 = 100, but it seems like Ross is more into ~20 + ~30 + ~51 = ~100. He genuinely seems to think that there is no strict relationship between words, punctuation, word order etc. that must equal absolute conceptual accuracy. Therefore, God’s words are near enough when it comes to editorial work. He’s okay with the Text and translation of the KJB, but when it comes to actual conceptual accuracy through editing, suddenly he literally cannot tell the difference between “ensample” and “example”.

Dean Burgon said of the KJB translators, “Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing ‘the same notion’ by employing ‘the same particular word;’ — (which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;) — we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind.”

Ross will take that the wrong way, that this “freedom” to render means that any option is a live choice. But Burgon makes clear it is the opposite, that in fact there are reasons compelling specificity, that the same original word does not require the same English word is true, but the exact English word to be used is important.

Burgon wrote further of the translators, “Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed, — any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject ‘purpose,’ ‘journey,’ ‘think,’ ‘pain,’ ‘joy,’ — in favour of ‘intent,’ ‘travel,’ ‘suppose,’ ‘ache,’ ‘gladness.’ But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’”

Conceptual accuracy requires the variation of English according to the nuance. And we can apply that on editorial level, it is not open season to say editing can remain in a state of flux, but the opposite, that editing must reflect the very nuance of the concepts, and they are communicated by the very niceties and fine details of English, and that in turn is a mirror to the Heavenly volume of the Book. Therefore, editing must come to a definite form.

THE FAITH WALK

Ross tells a story of how in 2011 he read Norton, and began to question David Raegan’s shallow views, and question KJBO talking points. At least Ross did not reject KJBO like so many others have done in the same circumstances.

I will quickly reiterate part of my own story. Back in the early 2000s I knew there were variations in editions, and I was reading everything I could, and communicated with many of the following: Burgon, Hills, Holland, Riplinger, Ruckman, Waite, Raegan and David Norton before he ever published. (Read more from the following sources: https://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf , https://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf , https://www.bibleprotector.com/blog/?p=1080 and https://www.bibleprotector.com/VB.pdf ).

I was critical of the “simplicity” in general of the KJBO side already between 2003 and 2007, and could refute all kinds of problems with what people were saying about editions and other KJB argumentation, which I did publicly from 2007. One important thing was that I did not allow the seeds of modernism (i.e. David Norton’s approach) take me away.

Here’s the important point: I did not allow “sight” to dictate how to interpret faith in the promises of the Scripture about the KJB. In fact, I have been very much about the Scriptural argument FOR the KJB rather than KJB being a fight (reaction) against modern versions/translations.

Whereas Bryan Ross began in 2011 from an empirical approach of seeing things that Norton showed and then reacted accordingly. (Sadly, walking slightly by sight rather than by pure faith.)

Thus, I had already strongly understood God’s work in the course of history toward having a perfect Earthly form of the Scripture, whereas Bryan Ross seemed to be trying to accommodate different editions like there was no final certainty and that there was no conceptual absolute perfection in relation to having a standard and correct edition of the KJB. (Norton’s exact position!)

In fact, Ross has in some ways tried to create a “fire storm” to not have a universe where God has not worked towards mankind having access to a copy of Scripture where there are words with punctuation and lettering that communicates exactly knowable meanings, but instead, that God’s message is sort of rolling around like a loose joint in the various editions of the KJB without God actually intending to have finality, perfection (in the blatantly obvious meaning of that word) and exactness of one precise set of words of an edition of the KJB.

Meaning, in fact, is in the mind of God, and this comes to a derivative concept, which is that God has communicated His Word with words with the intent that the world know the truth, and not only so, but be able to know properly, which is to say, that proper interpretation is accessible.

“5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

“6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

“23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

(Proverbs 1:5, 6, 23).

Of course, Christians can tap into this spirit of knowing, but to argue otherwise is to argue for not knowing, ignorance and is counter to blessing. This may be illustrated by Ross being unable to tell the difference between “example” and “ensample”.

My point in saying this is that if a person does not take the faith step towards understanding God’s work in history of having a standard edition, it is in this case because there a little bit of the modernist thinking which is blocking clarity. In fact, that lack of clarity is shown in Bryan Ross floundering around about “terms” versus “words”, which idea I have surpassed in addressing in the section Theistic Realism.

MISCELLANEOUS POINTS

Ross goes on to show how Ruckman did not believe that the Autographs and the KJB were letter for letter identical. Of course they are not, but Ruckman wanted to argue that somehow God was intervening to make the KJB better than the Autographs originals beyond how God actually made the KJB better than the original autographs. (While the world now speaks English more and more and we have a full 66 book Bible with a perfect Text, that’s not what can be said about the partial, varying and foreign original manuscripts, nor the elusive and varying TR editions.

Ross mentions the marginal material at Psalm 12, but does not seem to understand that what is in the margins is the rejected “chaff”. In the case of notes beginning with “Heb”, this means an literal rendering but which was considered an incorrect sense by the 1611 translators. Thus, in Psalm 12 the margin gives a different translation than what was in the main rendering. The marginal translation is technically possible but not is equal to what was placed as the main rendering. By which I mean that the margin (centre column) represents something which hypothetically could be valid because the reader was invited to check, but since it was reasonably rejected by the translators, and after of 400 years of public checking, it is confirmed as invalid. As God requires purity and perfection in Text and Translation, so He has not kept a question or allowed a state of (lingering) doubt as to what is correct. Thus, the centre column material should never be regarded as inspired scripture but as providentially rejected and otherwise informative material.

Ross also discusses the area of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18. I have argued that the idea of the promises and prophecies being fulfilled in history is needful, but also it must have a meaning about the very lettering of the Scripture. There are those who try to tie the promise to the Hebrew language since they say jots and tittles are parts of Hebrew letters. But the words “jot” and “tittle” are English words, and therefore can then apply to English letters. Now Jesus is referring to the promises, and the promises are written, and the written Scripture is made up of words, and words have meaning. Since we have Scripture in English, and it is for the world, then it follows that Jesus can have been prophesying specifically about the King James Bible.

But Ross tries to downplay the promise about having accuracy of letters of Scripture, because he is trying to create a system of non-specificity, where he is not locked to an actual conceptually accurate standard in a written form when it comes to the editorial perfection within the printed and edited presentational history of the King James Bible.

Ross draws his interpretation here from those commentators influenced by modernism, which does not highlight the importance of the accuracy of the letters of Scripture as being requisite parts of words which in turn present exact concepts. (There are plenty of promises where the very exactness of the passage hinges on a letter, as in Galatians 3:20, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”)

If Ross believes that the KJB is God’s words in English, then why cannot he extend that God has outworked for a standard edition? The irony is that Ross cannot point to a standard edition (for example when discussing italics) yet has to use some standard edition to compare between today and 1611. He surely knows that it makes sense to have a “point of reference”, but as such, he is reluctant to allow for the precision of an edition. Essentially, he can accept the version of 1611, the translation of 1611 but will not go further and allow for an edition. In doing so he begins to loose the bands that point to the correctness of the KJB, and he begins to accommodate the possibility for something to change within the KJB. This is certainly a danger in his small movement.

In fact, there is a kind of a hint that they do not believe in actual a perfect, exact, final translation, as much as they are content that the KJB merely is good and the best translation.

PSALM 12 AND THE PROCESS OF PURIFICATION

Psalm 12 is a prophetic psalm. Ross specifically argues that Psalm 12:6 is not about any process in history, where it states, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

Ross rightly understands that God’s words are pure, and were pure when David wrote Psalm 12, and at any time in history, so the pure Word of God must have been preserved from King David’s time to 1611. This is true, but he does not go into full detail how.

In fact, people in general point to many varying and incomplete copies so they wonder how could the Word of God be pure from the inspiration of the Autographs until 1611? The answer is very simple: that as long as the Scripture exists and is copied, regardless of minor flaws, and as long as the Scripture existed also in translations, then preservation was the reason why the Scripture existed, and since the Scripture itself is pure (God’s words themselves are pure) then the pure Scripture has endured through history.

Let me explain it using Theological Realism as a presupposition: God has the pure Scripture in His mind in eternity. The Trinity have it in Heaven in Creation (and today). And it is written on Earth by inspiration. The Scripture, wherever it is, and where it is incorrupt in its existence, though in torn, badly written and various copies, it is not the ink and skins which are the important thing, but the “inspiration” in the words themselves, passing down by copies through time.

So then, Scripture is pure. The words exist.

But how is Scripture purified? Well, since inspiration there was a scattering in readings, so there needed to be a gathering of readings, and the TR editions are part of this.

So it is not the purification of the Scripture itself, but rather a purification of how the Scripture is presented or its form, both that the Text went through stages, and we can especially find fulfilment to the prophecy of Revelation 10 in the fact that there were seven major English translations of the Reformation period.

We can count seven times, and that leads us to the King Jame Bible. But it is very important to show the difference between purification of Text and translation and the fact that the Scripture is always ever pure.

This same logic applies to the King James Bible. The King James Bible we can say is pure. But what about typographical errors? What about the unstandardised spelling and grammatical forms of 1611? What about the need for regularisation (including work on italics)?

So then, there is purity and there is a need for purification.

Purification in editing means that in time the KJB came out in better editions, it means that there were important editions with corrections and work to ensure standardisation. So then the end of that process would be a pure edition that doesn’t have typographical errors, has standardised spelling and grammar and proper regularisation.

Sadly Bryan Ross is not at all clear about this. He knows about the work that happened, but he doesn’t seem to perceive the process of improvement is working towards a goal of purity even of the printing and presentation.

In an ironic exchange, he told his interviewer that the mechanism for correcting press errors and editing the King James Bible is through the interaction of the Body of Christ with the KJB. This is a very revealing exposure of Bryan Ross’ mindset, because he must therefore have to accept the editing of the King James Bible, yet, at the same time, he seems to refuse an editorial standard.

CONCLUSION

While Ross was right to not just take a blind view with some sort of redneck KJBO position, at the same time he has not articulated a good enough response. Instead of finding that God has outworked in history towards a pure edition, he has jumped the wrong way in his engaging with “sight”.

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

The King James Bible is very clear in its words and meanings, in line with Theistic Realism, (e.g. stablish vs. establish.)

I argue for the precise accuracy and necessity of every word, letter and punctuation mark in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible, asserting that even seemingly archaic or minor differences carry distinct theological and linguistic weight.

I believe that the language of the King James Bible should be considered as “Biblical English”, distinct yet completely communicable to ordinary English. I believe that the best truths, best Bible and best theology is in English, so according the Scripture prophecies, English should be taught all over the world.

Every jot and tittle in the English of the KJB is necessary for exact meaning. Words that appear interchangeable — such as alway vs. always, flieth vs. fleeth, ensample vs. example— are distinct, with differing nuances and theological implications. Changes such as spelling alterations, punctuation shifts or word replacements alter meaning and undermine doctrinal clarity. Modern revised works and American variant spellings are threats to the unity and doctrinal exactness of Scripture.

The Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB presents exactly the perfect, divinely preserved English scripture. My monograph Glistering Truths is a meticulous defence of the King James Bible’s linguistic precision, arguing that every specific word, spelling and punctuation in the Pure Cambridge Edition carries divine intentionality and matters for biblical doctrine. Any change, even seemingly minor, is seen as a potential compromise in conveying the truth as God intended.

So I can point to actual words today, just as the Scripture promised, actual letters, jots and tittles, which are correct. Sadly, Bryan Ross cannot identify a word perfect editorial text, he can only identify a Bible version and translation which is conceptually correct, but no edition of that version and translation that is exactly correct in its communication of concepts to the very jot and tittle.

Bryan Ross and Dan Haifley discussed me (Matthew Verschuur / bibleprotector) in passing in a video.

Their argument for the transmission of the Text from inspiration to the King James Bible (KJB), which includes the Latin as a witness, is correct.

The “Verbal Equivalence” view, which says that God’s law does not seem to have a particular form in Heaven nor on Earth, is a weakened view, because it does not allow for the conceptual accuracy of God’s words, it allows for some conceptual variation, e.g. not detecting the difference between “ensample” and “example”.

The idea of there being standard editing and accurate printing should be common sense. But it is a misrepresentation to say that unless a Bible is standardly edited and perfectly printed it is “wrong”. The Word of God was in Hebrew and Greek, and that’s not even English. The Geneva Version was the Word of God and is a different Text and translation. Early editions of the KJB were badly printed and they are the Word of God. The Oxford Edition has some editorial differences and it is the Word of God.

So it is wrong to say that one person in Australia is saying that only one Edition of one Bible is the Word of God. Ross and Haifley are clearly misrepresenting me.

The whole idea of there being a standard edition of the KJB is so that we have an agreed standard (e.g. for comparing the 1611 to today), have a correct representation of the KJB (conceptually accurate as far as spellings goes) and having a standard for correct typography (the complete elimination of typos).

It has been well established and accepted that Cambridge editing and printing is the best, and also, as people make minute examination, they can see that the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) is representing the KJB properly, fully and as a standard. In other words, the PCE was already qualified as a standard before my website appeared in 2007.

In response to false claims, I have never claimed a vision, a dream or any such thing as to why the PCE is best or right. I have consistently stated and shown that I came to understand about it by study and by looking at providences.

It is not some arbitrary standard set up by me, which is what the modernists might imply, nor did I pronounce by some fervent prophetical means, which is what others might wish to say.

It is notable that I have refuted the false claims over and again and yet there is still a propensity for certain people to repeat them. Therefore, it is very bad that someone should go so far as to say again that I had some vision or whatever (the first misrepresentation) that the PCE is the only word (the second misrepresentation). The Bible did not appear on Earth in 2007 nor did I even make the PCE, which dates back to about 1910 or so.

And lots of people have and can look into the PCE, and into the issue, and come to their own view, and the fact that they understand that it is a good thing is of God. It is very wrong to then say that people should not have a standard and exact printing of God’s words because of some misrepresentation about the person who promoted the idea.

But because the PCE itself is verifiable, that is the point. Otherwise people will have to reject the KJB because King James I was not a Baptist or something, which would be a propagandistic approach. And people will then have to say, the KJB is just an arbitrary work, and why should we follow it and not make a new Geneva translation that might be better? In this, I detect the error of the “Verbal Equivalence” spirit which actually can lead away from the KJB itself as a standard.

The way to determine a correct Edition is like the same way to determine a correct Bible translation etc. It is on the basis of examination of the editorial history of the KJB, internal factors of editorial variations, external factors of providences and a reasoned desire for a standard and elimination of typographical errors. Most importantly it is based on Scripture statements.

These are all reasons we would want to make sure we have a correct representation of the King James Bible as based on standards of copy-editing and typographical exactness. If the PCE is not the “best one” then what is? The “Verbal Equivalence” view seems to be against the many Scriptural passages which indicate that God has an exact standard and concepts like (for example) “Shibboleth”, “seeds many”, “ought” and “jot”, i.e. it is consistent with the nature and work of God, and with other actual Scripture promises and prophecies themselves, that we should indeed have precise lettering and proper and full knowledge of the exact concepts of His very words.

I submit that I am not making that up, but that it’s a Biblical doctrine and consistent with the nature of truth. So it is not “aberrant” to have a correct edition, just as Cambridge editors in the 17th century corrected printings, or 18th century editors edited towards standardisation. It is not “leading to a falsification” just as leading 19th century publishers spoke about striving for printing textual purity, or that I put on a website files that printers, publishers, software developers and websites could use as a typographically correct file.

Also, I admit, I’m a traditional Pentecostal and I promote the (Reformed) idea of the actual perfection of God’s law and message, but that shouldn’t be an issue if we are talking about Anglican Cambridge University Press printing an Edition in many of its KJV printings from 1910 up to 1999 that is being taken as the standard; and that this Edition was also printed by the Presbyterian Collins publishers in the same era, and frankly, both Cambridge and Collins were getting quite secular in that period.

But if good Christians, whether Baptist, Calvinist, Pentecostal, etc. are able to recognise and use one Edition as the best and standard one of the KJB, that alone is surely a positive.

By the way, I don’t believe in “Verbatim Identicality” as such as that position is nonsense. I believe we should have exactly on Earth what is in the Heavenly Book (Psalm 40, etc.) and exactly in English what was in the original language Autographs. Yes, the Autographs took time to appear. Yes, the King James Bible took time to appear. So it is that we have the standard Edition of it now, the Pure Cambridge Edition. I unashamedly hope and pray all true Christians are coming to it in agreement. God Bless Bryan and Dan for the many good things they say and do.

[Editorial note: This was first a youtube comment and then a facebook comment, but in that process I was able to correct some spelling and typos in what I typed. What is here is “better” for those reasons, and because this is my “official” blog, obviously this would be the “standard” form of what I wrote.]

ADDITIONALLY, I sent a message as follows:

Dan thanks for letting me correct you if are wrong about me, and sadly, you are quite wrong about me.

I do not claim that only ONE edition of the KJB is the actual Word of God to the exclusion of anything/everything else. I have never claimed, nor believe that, God spoke to me in a vision or some other prophetical way, to confirm or tell me about Pure Cambridge Edition, nor to say it is the only pure Word.

I believe that the Autographs were pure, and all Scripture copies, manuscripts, texts, versions, editions, etc. of Scripture are pure, in that Scripture itself is pure.

Textually, while the Textus Receptus is pure broadly, and that the KJB’s readings are pure specifically.

Translation-wise, while Reformation Protestant translations were pure broadly, the KJB is pure English specifically.

Edition-wise, while Editions of the KJB, in and following the 1769 are pure, the PCE is pure specifically (as an Edition in its own right).

And setting-wise, while Cambridge KJVs with the PCE have been very accurately printed, the files on my websites were thoroughly checked so that there is no errata in the typesetting, and full “critical” standardisation, i.e. jot and tittle kind of purity.

And even after I have insisted for years that the accusation of me drawing on some sort of Pentecostal experience was the means of discovering or confirming the PCE was wrong, you have still repeated that.

You may disagree with things I say, believe or stand for, but I hope you will accept my correcting you regarding this matter.

Thomas Ross (of faithsaves.net) is an American cessationist Baptist. However, despite his theological differences to Christian Perfection and Traditional Pentecostalism, he has made some excellent points in defence of the King James Bible. After he made quite a good statement regarding the Scriptural basis of the preservation of the Scripture into English, he then erred into the “original languages only” (Textus Receptus only) doctrine of D. A. Waite, and jeopardised his entire argument. Not unrelatedly, he also elsewhere stated, rather strangely, that “Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation validate that ‘and he went’ is the correct reading in Ruth 3:15.”

TR: I confess that I do not believe that modern Baptist churches should use any other English translation than the Authorized Version, nor do I see any necessity for revising the KJV at any time during my lifetime.

This is the first sign of a problem. Being open to future changes to the King James Bible is to recognise that the King James Bible’s text and translation may not be perfect after all. Changing the KJB is fraught with danger, because even little changes like “alway” to “always” are meaning changes.

It is very important that the conceptual integrity of the KJB be retained, and therefore no changes should be made. English is, in its written form, become fixed. Written English is not changing so as to make the words or parsing and syntax of the KJB unintelligible.

TR: However, I also confess that the promises of preservation are specifically made for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, not English words (Matthew 5:18), and that there are no specific promises that state that Scripture would be translated without error.

After having argued that Scripture is in English, and that the nature of inspiration is retained through translation and even given verses that show that preservation is implied to come into English, he now states the opposite, as if the real truth is only in the original languages, and that Matthew 5:18 does not include English, and that it is impossible to have a perfect translation.

First, it is a sign of modernist influence when a person says “Aramaic”. They are obviously meaning Syriack, and what became known as Chaldee.

The assertion that only the Scripture is to be preserved in the original languages is never stated in Scripture.

Only one verse is referred to, and that verse, Matthew 5:18, is not a specific positive reference to Hebrew only (and what about Greek?) Jots and tittles are to be found in English. If it is to be argued that only the Scriptures were in Hebrew (the Old Testament) when Jesus spoke this, then it both misses the Gospel implications of promises of the New Testament (e.g. Jesus saying He is coming soon) and, more importantly, is missing the fact that the entire Bible is in Heaven.

The question then is what language or how is the Bible recorded in Heaven? That is, in Matthew 5:18, Jesus is saying he is to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law. That means every promise. Promises are written. The Bible is a legal document. In law, the very words matter. So then, the very truth is recorded in the Heavenly Volume (Codex).

But Jesus would not be ultimately referring to “Scripture” as being in Heaven without it being on Earth. After all Moses made it clear that the commandment was not far and remote, but at hand. Therefore, the implication is that for believers to know the law, and to ingest it inwardly, it must be available. So then, when Jesus is referring to something which by implication must be the ultimate perfect Scripture, should we then disregard that we have a representation of this for the world in the latter/end times in English, made common?

The words “jot and tittle” are English words, words found in the English turn of phrase and in the dictionaries. We can therefore join together the idea that there is a perfect Scripture with the idea that the Scripture exists perfectly in English here and now as a standard.

So then to limit the truth to Hebrew copies is too shallow, when the whole Scripture is perfect in Heaven, and that there is also something which answers that which is above in Heaven by having a perfect Bible for all in English, to the ends of the earth and for the end of the world.

If there is no perfect translation, then how can the King James Bible be upheld by Thomas Ross. He must just think it is good, maybe an excellent translation, but still, he must admit either to error in English or to less light in English, and it is in this thought where there is a great danger. For, why would God bring the Scripture to English and yet have it missing something? Or, why would He bring it to English in sufficiency, but have something better in the disagreeing and various copies in Hebrew?

Again, why would God do so much as to use imperfections of the Hebrew copyists and all this, only to deny that perfection cannot come via translation? So, one human endeavour of creating a Hebrew Masoretic standard is able to achieve perfection, but bringing the same into English just cannot reach it? No, either God is of power to bring it to English for all, or why even bother giving it by inspiration to begin with.

TR: Since no verses of the Bible promise a perfect English translation, I respect the views of brethren who, while receiving the promises of God concerning the preservation of His perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, believe that there are places where the English of the King James Version would be better rendered otherwise.

This is even more dangerous backpeddling, and all to do with his peeve about the word “baptism”. There’s a denomination that uses the word “Baptist” to mean “full immersion”. As a full immersionist myself, why doesn’t Thomas Ross recognise that this is what the Bible is teaching, that he wants to change the King James Bible word from “baptize” to “immerse”? This illustrates that wanting to change the KJB is always fraught with maximal danger. This desire to criticise and tamper with KJB words is highly dangerous, because who knows what of even small changes would result. To change now is to corrupt!

TR: Furthermore, I recognize that there can be more than one accurate way to translate a verse from the original language into the vernacular.

This is another slippery slide backwards. Let us admit that the pre-1611 Protestant English translations were generally accurate and differ to the KJB here and there. But we are for perfection, for exactness, not just mere sufficiency. This desire to allow variations to what has properly been accepted in English as the standard is to tear down the ensign, withdraw and surrender the high position.

TR: Nevertheless, because the people of God who do not know the original languages should have (a justified) confidence that when they hold the King James Bible in their hands, they have God’s very Word in their own language, and because I respect the high confidence that the Head of the church has led His congregations to place in the English of the Authorized Version, and because I have found in my own language study that, time and again, there are excellent reasons for the translation choices in the Authorized Version, I refrain from criticizing the English of the King James Bible, and when it is appropriate in preaching and teaching to mention a different way the text can be translated, I choose to say, “this word (or verse, etc.) could also be translated as” rather than “this word (or verse, etc.) would be better translated as.”

To say that something could be translated another way is to already give ground that the Word of God is not so fully, pleasingly or properly in English, and tears at the very fabric of our Scripture in English. If the KJB is not right, or could have words replaced, then where is the standard? Is the opinion of Thomas Ross now the standard of what could be the Scripture instead of the KJB’s proper and perfect wording in certain places?

And now to an adjoining point.

TR: Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation validate that ‘and he went’ is the correct reading in Ruth 3:15.

The KJB has had, since the second edition of 1611, “she” in all the main and important editions, at Ruth 3:15. All normal Bibles today have “she”. Yet, that subtle spirit of wanting to turn the truth to error is at work, even (sadly) through a brother who otherwise has some great points in favour of our King James Bible, in that he wants to alter the Bible to an error, even by changing a hairsbreadth. Such changes are highly questionable.

I’ve produced a copy of the Pure Cambridge Edition that specifically made that the “S” at the end of “LORD’S” not a small capital but lower case “s”. Not one person to this day has objected about it, and yet, it is probable that Cambridge was printing copies last century with a small capital “S”. However, it looks like they changed to a lower case “s” themselves with the printing of Norton’s Edition. I am making it very clear that this “s” is in line with the editorial history of the KJB, and is not to be taken as a light thing. This is the Word of God, so we must treat it with the highest of respect. (The small “s” is used because the “s” is a contraction for “his”, and the apostrophe was not use in 1611.) [Note that this formatting does not show the small capitals as actual small capitals.]

Editorial clarity (what I have done) is one thing, but what Thomas Ross proposes or will allow is a quite another thing. The “he” in the first edition was a typographical error in 1611, it should have been “she” at Ruth 3:15 all along. It was editorially responsible for editors to have “she”. But once we move away from God’s providence manifested in English, we are on the grounds of other languages, a misguided emphasis on the lack of printing-house quality of 1611 and Thomas Ross’ opinion that he wants to change away from the pure wording.

It is far better to stand for the King James Bible and accept it as God’s provision than to seek to provide loopholes for making alterations to it.

Nick Sayers and Bryan Ross had an interview in May 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvt4fajpYSw

They discussed numerous topics with the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus. The entire interview is informative, but brings up some issues. Much of the discussion revolved around the editions of the King James Bible.

One of the main themes that comes through is that the King James Bible Only movement has a lot of over-simple and sometimes misguided views.

Bryan Ross tries to make out as if King James Bible Only, he actually says “everybody”, has been saying that the King James Bible has not had changes, that the only differences between 1611 and today are printer errors and spelling changes, and that there are four main editions.

Sadly, Ross is misstating the case there, for rhetoric purposes. The reality is that from D. A. Waite until now, the more prolific KJBO writers have indeed recognised there are changes (not in underlying text or translation) in the King James Bible. For example, from 2007, I have been publicly talking about more than “four editions”, and I have made it very clear for years that there was standardisation of the language and editorial regularisation.

Having said that, the facts that Ross mentions about various editions are not incorrect, but in a few examples (such as use of apostrophes) I think his interpretation is not correct.

Sayers also talks about “accompted” being a separate word to “accounted”. While there are two different words, there is also the reality that “accompted” is just the old spelling of “accounted”, which is the case in the Bible. I don’t doubt that there can be a different word, but even the dictionaries also mention that “accompted” can just be an old spelling. (By the way, a word like “comptroller” which today could be its own word, or potentially an old spelling for “controller”, I suspect is a kind of example of the same thing.)

Another issue is that some people have taken a hyper-puritanical approach to spelling and word differences in the King James Bible. On one side, “example” and “ensample” are clearly two different words, which of course we should strive for having exactness. But on the other, “musick” being changed to “music” is not the end of civilisation, though it should be “musick”.

While the Bible in English has changed from Tyndale to the KJB, and the KJB has certain kinds of changes (e.g. spelling) from 1611 to now, we still recognise the Word of God. What is problematic is that if there is no standard, and no exactness, then things are not so clear, and this can impact doctrine.

I wrote a book called “Glistering Truths” (see 2024 edition) which explains why exactness in English is good, and also having a standard edition of the KJB is good.

Bryan Ross has tried to argue that because there are spelling and word differences in American KJBs that there cannot be a standard, or somehow is unwilling to nail concepts down to an exactness, doesn’t make sense. The point is not to belittle American KJVs that don’t conform to standard and proper lettering. They have been used as the Word of God, despite these things. God has sufficiency of grace. But He also has been working towards finality and common knowledge of a standard, which is important, because the law of God and precise thinking require the precision of language down to the punctuation. That’s an advantage of God working through history, it’s not a rejection of old or American KJV copies, rather, this is the crown to them, for what they laboured in so well, we now have the par excellence.

I think that there is no dictionary that is a standard to the English language, though I think the OED is an excellent record of usage. Only the KJB can be the ultimate authority to itself. Dictionaries can be helpful, but you have to always say that the KJB is greater than the dictionary. I don’t think that the King James Bible Only people thought it through properly when they rejected all dictionaries, and there has been a misguided adherence to the 1828 Webster Dictionary. On the other hand, Ross seems to go too far implying that dictionaries are much more of a usable tool than what they should be.

Bryan Ross rightly pointed out that Mark Ward had a point about the potential for people to misunderstand some KJB word, but Nick Sayers was also right to question Ward’s additional motives. I expect that in time, more different “helps” will come available to continue to assist people in understanding the KJB language.

Christopher Yetzer by way of messaging stated that we don’t use a 1769, which is one of my long standing points. People keep saying they use a 1769 when hardly any one does. The editions in use today are a little different to the 1769. Rick Norris has had a field day blowing up KJBO people for it.

Nick Sayers does not have a very good view of Blayney’s italics, as we have them today. This is a product of Sayers’ looking at the original languages and TR editions, when italics are for a variety of reasons, including translation and textual variances. The italics should be kept the way they are because they are essentially universal in editions and they are an accepted tradition, and I suspect that Sayers has not fully entered into the mind of Blayney on how they were executed editorially.

Bryan Ross also makes an unclear statement about italics, trying to claim that these words were not inspired. What he seems to be confusing is the original inspiration with what is needed for accuracy in English today. Therefore, the italics must be conveying the inspired Scripture, and therefore the italic words are part of the Scripture, so they should not be belittled. Now, of course, the KJB translators or Blayney in 1769 was not inspired, and they were not “adding” words to the Scripture.

It is also problematic that Ross seems almost drawn to listen to “critics”, or to give them an undue hearing, whether David Norton, Mark Ward or facebook critics.

I want to make it very clear, regarding the last question in their interview, that if you have a King James Bible you have the Word of God. I promote the Pure Cambridge Edition because I think we need an editorial standard, because we need knowledge of accuracy to the very letter of Scripture and because it’s a widespread edition from a reputable source (Cambridge) which built on a good editorial foundation before it (the 1769 Edition). While there is a danger that someone could thrust in the fire a Bible because it has “Zarah” instead of the correct “Zerah” at Genesis 46:12, I think such an attitude would be too out of line, though I would hope that in time there is more and more alignment to the pure standard. Surely it’s not a problem if people marked with a pencil an “e” instead of an “a’. People don’t go to hell merely for using “Zarah” or Oxford KJBs.

I think Bryan Ross is unconsciously conflating the legitimacy of having the Pure Cambridge Edition with some sort of mystical adherence to the very words and letters of Scripture. I think his attitude is in the same category as an American revolutionary one: he sees the dangers of extremism in power but also bucks against legitimacy because it would mean submission.

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

(1 Cor. 1:27, 28).

The interview is very good, and there are lots of merits to things discussed. I personally can see the danger of someone mistaking what I say in my book “Glistering Truths” and taking things way too far. In every place where people are using the Pure Cambridge Edition as a representative standard for today for comparing to 1611, yes, that’s good. But really we are most concerned about the Word of God itself, God’s message. Because God’s word is “law” and “sure”, I think it is only good if people know what “ensample” or “throughly” mean in comparison to “example” and “thoroughly”. These words should not be treated as interchangeable now, and in fact, we shouldn’t be open to or allowing any changes to our King James Bible now.

King James Bible anti-perfectionist, Mark Ward, has put a lot of effort into trying to argue that it is getting to difficult too understand the King James Bible.

He is trying to create a profile for himself with some books and materials which try to identify words that might be wrongly understood in the KJB.

What Ward did not do is approach the area like he wanted to actually help people. Instead, he approached the area like as if he was being funded by certain sources, with the intent of extending markets of sales. That is, the attempt to break people from solely relying on the KJB and an attempt to sell more people more Bible study “resources” in line with that view.

Further, Ward has been approaching his work not in a “ministry” sense (i.e. to serve the other without being a burden) but in a marketing sense, creating lines of revenue to sustain himself.

I believe in prosperity doctrine, so I am all for ministries giving and receiving. Maybe Mark Ward could learn a thing from Kenneth Copeland and put out his own Reference Study Bible, King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition. (After all, Copeland himself put out the PCE several times, so his really was a ministry of excellence!)

In Mark Ward’s crusade against certain words in the KJB, he surprisingly didn’t highlight some very significant resources, like W. Aldis Wright’s Bible word-book.

If he’d used that book, and its preceding incarnation, he would have seen what mid-19th century people called “archaic” in the KJB. He would have noticed that the same words that get attacked today were already listed and defined there.

When we hear Mark Ward speak, then, we are not hearing a dispassionate, fair and impartial treatment of the subject. No, we are hearing a propagandist. Ward’s background and interests are much more around visual communication and public relations than about teaching and edifying the dumb lambs of the Body of Christ.

Besides his self-promotion, he has a very clear agenda, and it is about product sales and trying to infect King James Bibles users with modernist thinking.

So there’s no need to buy Mark Ward’s books when plenty of superior information is freely available:

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookag00eastgoog

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookag01eastgoog

https://archive.org/details/thebiblewordbook00wriguoft

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookglo00wrig

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookglo00wrigiala

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, the men of old were men of renown.

Isn’t it funny that the same words which are said to be “archaic” or difficult or whatever then are the same today… maybe we are reading Biblical English after all, and not “1611 English”. I’d go so far to say that these same words would be ones ploughboys in 1611 would have struggled with.

Tim Berg, a young rejector of the perfection of the King James Bible, on increasing his scholarly repertoire, was reading David Daniell.

David Daniell, a literary scholar who has now passed away, much preferred the Tyndale Bible to the King James Bible and wrote quite negatively of the King James Bible.

In the Preface to his book, The Bible In English, he bemoans the collapse in knowledge of the Scripture. One might offer to him the solution to the problem: reinstate the King James Bible. But it is apparent that DD did not want to do that, because he wanted to tear it down.

I want to focus on one paragraph, called “Lighting”. He writes, “Some of the work in this book has to be the switching-off of special lighting, to reveal an illusion for what it is.” He is trying to say that the King James Bible has been wrongly exalted and loved, that the KJB is really false light and its beauty, power and magnificence is merely an illusion.

DD exhibits absolute blindness to the achievements of the KJB, and is clearly fighting against the Providences which are with it.

He writes, “The sudden elevation of that 1611 ‘AV’ (KJV) to near divine status in 1769, and, for many people, for ever after, so that ‘Avolatry’ went hand in hand with the mindless adoration of Shakespeare (‘Bardolatry’) for two hundred years and more, is a strange phenomenon, especially as it went with the radical alteration of both texts.”

This statement is packed with lies. It seems strange to assert that the KJB suddenly was elevated in 1769. He doesn’t provide documentary evidence for this assertion. (Why isn’t it a good thing that the KJB has been upheld?)

Second, he exhibits his cynicism towards Shakespeare, but links the KJB and Shakespeare — something which ordinary Christians haven’t gone out of their way to state, though some literary types will praise the KJB and Shakespeare, but this seems quite mad to question.

Third, he charges the KJB with having been radically altered. This is a clearly delusional charge, as the KJB has barely changed at all, except mainly in orthography.

He goes onwards, writing, “Stranger still is a twentieth-century insistence in large parts of the United States of America that this version, imagined to be the personal work of King James the First, and known. often as the ‘Saint James Version’, is the ‘inerrant Word of God’, unchallengeable even to its merest dot and comma.”

Here is conflates two different things, one is that there are some people who ignorantly think that King James made that Bible, and they even call the Bible the “St James”. The other is that the KJB should not be changed even in a dot or comma.”

Well, those two things are completely unrelated, yet for propaganda purposes he affixes them. In reality, the second position is a real one, and has found expression in the doctrine of the Pure Cambridge Edition, which came to world attention after DD wrote his book in 2003.

But to make it clear, the purity of the KJB to the dot and letter is not based upon some special “revelation” or special inspiration or something, which is what DD is really implying is being believed. He doesn’t describe the believing side well at all, here or in other places in his book.

DD really is the same as the rest of the unbelieving scholars who hold a low view of the King James Bible, such as F. H. A. Scrivener, C. Hill, M. Black, D. Norton, D. McKitterick, A. Nicholson, etc. (Three Davids among their number.)

DD’s desire to bring back the Bible is good, but he could not have been trusted to do it since he quite unscholastically believed that the KJB had suffered “radical alteration” of its text since 1611.

There is of course no proof of that. The same readings and translation that is there in 1611 is there today. We have a history of editorial work, but that is not designed to change the actual work of 1611, just do things like correct printing errors, standardise spelling and other such editorial regularisation.

Tim Berg would do well to not uphold David Daniell as a guide or hero. Notwithstanding DD did make some good points about the need to recognise the Bible in 16^th century history and the importance of the KJB over the Geneva in the minds of mid-17^th century Christians, he nevertheless had many negative and blindingly bad views of the KJB.

One cannot wish for the permeating knowledge of the greatness of the KJB on one hand, and yet pull it down and delegitimise it with the other. That is why I say DD was mad.

Near the end of DD’s book is a whole section dedicated to ridiculing those who use the KJB, mischaracterising the exclusive use of the King James Bible and making some very strange, ignorant and downright untrue charges, all of which is designed to make a Bible lover look a maniac. (There have been actual extremists and problems of course.)

DD shows his colours in making out that the lovers of the KJB are “anti-communists” while drawing a quote from the heretical Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is the early 2000s way of saying that KJB precisionists (to draw on the old name for Puritans), are worse than a certain political ideology of the 20th century.

He is driven to label the KJB “already archaic in 1611, often erroneous, sometimes unintelligible”, and he seems perplexed that people still uphold the KJB in present day America.

Tim Burg has chosen his side, aligning to those who would dethrone the KJB and to besmirch those that uphold it. It’s a sad thing to see that Tim Burg didn’t instead think that he could promote and uphold the KJB better than those he saw doing a bad job of it, and instead has shaken his fist at it.