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

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

Norris always will side with anything that is against the KJB or against the PCE. He attacked D. A. Waite, who was an earnest old man who was a bit of a fuddy-duddy in his views on the KJB. But Norris attacked him because he is always compelled against the KJB. And when scholar David Daniell wrote something against the KJB, Norris would be there clapping and agreeing in a heartbeat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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