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;
(1 Cor. 1:27, 28).
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:
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.