Introduction
I have the feeling of a strong man rejoicing to run a race as I saw and now write in response to Pastor Bryan Ross’ article about the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Ross has been pushing his narrative for a few years, that there is no single exactly correct edition of the King James Bible. He wants to embrace a host of badly edited American editions with all their divergences rather than run the course of a pure exemplar edition.
It has taken me some time to try to understand what he is arguing for, since it seems to me that he is saying that there is only general truth and not singular perfect truth, or perhaps, there is a single perfect set of ideas in the Bible but no actual copy of the Bible that expresses that perfectly as far as being letter perfect. I’ve found it difficult to understand precisely what he does believe.
Now I want to be fair and since I think my view is correct, I don’t have to misrepresent or twist Ross’ view. Whether or not he made a spelling mistake in his heading on the word “Prespectives” is not the sort of thing I want to concentrate on. I’ve had to edit my own writing for typos too.
Ross has written a whole article trying to frame me as inconsistent. His article Inconsistent Logic & The PCE Position Examining Three Perspectives is an attempt to try to make out either I am illogical or have changed my ideas.
While it is true we all develop and grow, and we all improve our understanding, I will show how Ross is wrong, how Ross has misunderstood me and how I think Ross wants to frame me as wrong.
An attempt to present Ross’ position
I am going to do my best to try to present what Ross believes, as relevant to this debate. He believes that the King James Bible is the best English translation. He thinks that the King James Bible preserves what was in the Textus Receptus, which he upholds. He thinks that the variations in editions and printings of the KJB do not amount to “corruptions”, but since he is measuring to the TR, he is accepting the various editions of the KJB are reliably presenting “substantively” the same meaning.
Ross also makes much of “verbal equivalence” a term which his group has coined which describes that meaning of words are the same as the meaning in the original languages even if spelling has varied in English. In the same way, the Tyndale Bible might use a different word to the King James Bible, but the overall meaning is still “substantively” the same. He measures this in a doctrinal sense, and seems to base this on the idea of how the Bible seems to loosely (rather than precisely) quote itself between the Testaments.
He rejects “exact sameness”, which his group has termed “verbatim identicality”, which is the alleged idea that there must be a robotic and rigid “xerox” (i.e. photocopy) of what was written in the originals as to be given today. He applies the same with comparing the English orthography of the 1611 printing of the KJB with what was printed in the 20th century. I suspect that as a younger Christian, he had some sort of nebulous view that this was true, but as he became older and wiser, he realised he had to explain real editorial variations in editions and since 1611. He took the same view that the modern supporters do, that the truth must generally be there, and that specifics of typography must not count for much. What matters, apparently, is the preservation of the message, while specific words don’t really matter.
As far as interpretation of Scripture, there are two key passages that define Ross’ view. One is 2 Timothy 2:15, which speaks of “rightly dividing the word of truth”, which he takes to describe the dividing up of the Divine Œconomy into various dispensations, and specifically applies the verse to highlight that the writings of Paul are particularly relevant for Christians today (essentially part of Acts to Philemon). This might be termed the Pauline Dispensational Method.
The other passage of importance is Matthew 5:18, where he takes the “jots and tittles” to mean the descriptions of things in the message and not specifically the written legal form of those promises. This means that he is looking at Scripture as a set of ideas and doctrine rather than the narrow meaning that it is something which is communicated by a specific string of letters making words.
He therefore would read Scripture as primarily literally and he starts from a Grammatical-Historical Interpretation. It is important to note that he holds to the “Grammatical” part as how one should read a genre of writing rather than any specificity about the words or letters being used themselves. In the “Historical” aspect, he sees the Bible within the lens of its communicating to the original audience.
He is a Futurist (i.e. anti-Historicist), and a Cessationist (i.e. anti-Pentecostal). While leaning to Paul’s writings as specifically relevant for the present day, he still allows for a broad application of all Bible passages to the present. Most especially, in all this, he places less emphasis on words and verbiage as conceptual containers, and so therefore, he must most especially be polemically moved against any position which constrains or narrows down on words as being specifically emphasised upon as the precise conveyers of an exact sense.
In looking at the printed history of the King James Bible, in the first instance, much of Ross’ targeting has been against a kind of unlearned Ruckmanite position that had tended to deny editorial work within the King James Bible, and the almost strawman view that the King James Bible today is identical to what was printed in 1611 except for some typographical errors.
My general comments on Ross’ approach
There are parts of Ross’ approach and thinking which I would quite noticeably differ with. I have tried to present this without the kind of editorialisation which Ross has practiced against me.
For example, he has tried to colour me as holding a “unique position”, using “unrealistic” ideas and being a practitioner of “private interpretation”.
Ross, as aided no doubt by his friend Nathan Kooienga, has tried to use “logic” to make out as if what I am saying is “inconsistent”. They say my position is “confusing”, but it seems to me that they have refused to understand my explanations.
I think this is related to an underlying problem, what I might call “Grace Libertarianism”, basically, by not approaching the Bible in a legal sense, one can see the corollary fuzzy thinking. I think that the same malaise which affects the charismatics also addles the thinking here of Ross and Kooienga, who both are intelligent enough, yet are surprisingly willing to adhere to a view which defies authority, precision and clarity.
Ross has been pushing his narrative for a few years, that there is no single exactly correct edition of the King James Bible because he seems to think that truth can be contained within parameters, rather than that there is a specifically accurate written Word of God anywhere in existence. He is using a kind of logical fallacy that if something can be permissively correct, that is, generally correct, that it cannot ever be specifically correct.
That is, that if various possible ways of saying something exist, that these multiple possibilities seem, in his mind, to allow him to deny that there is one specific way to say something exactly correctly. Thus, Ross is anti-perfectability.
I don’t understand how Ross doesn’t see there needs to be a perfect standard to which all the permissible possibilities are ultimately adhering to. In order for there to be permissibility there must be an ultimate legal jot and tittle correct written standard.
By disconnecting conceptual accuracy from the specificity of words, letters and punctuation, he is more in the realm (akin to the thinking of many charismatics) that God’s truth is in ideas and that God is I guess apparently not tied to the letter of the law. Ross thinks that God’s ideas are being communicated in the King James Bible, but it’s not so far to backslide to the position of Ross’ acquaintances J. Burris and J. Armstrong, who along with the host of Reformed, Charismatics and Baptists think that various translations are okay as long as they are presenting the approximate same gist or message. Ross’ decoupling from the anchor the exactness of the words of Scripture is the first slipping towards that modernistic position.
Ross wrote his article against me, with the help of his circle and some background AI assistance, to essentially try to charge me with apparently being inconsistent. Actually, Ross was stung into writing more because I called him out for wrongly saying that I say that if it isn’t PCE, it must be corrupt.
The actual article he wrote is more about him trying to save face than about me. Ross said that he concluded from a 2009 copy of my book that I must be saying or implying that if it isn’t PCE, it must be corrupt. He didn’t get it from what I actually stated, he got it by a kind of convoluted way of thinking.
In other words, he has in his mind a way of thinking about what I was apparently meaning. That is really all it is, and then it was attaboyed by Kooienga trying to make a strained logical syllogism which totally says something I have expressly denied! It’s a conceptual mess, and it is designed to undermine my position by gross misrepresentation.
Ross tries to argue this as based on the fact that he used a monograph I wrote in 2009 (Glistering Truths), which he used to assess my views. Now, just as an aside, I’ve edited that monograph, to fix up typos and to rephrase some parts to make them clearer. But the argument and views expressed are not changed in this area of discussion.
How strange it is that Ross is writing an article trying to make out as if I am saying something different now to what I said before. In other words, he’s trying to frame me as inconsistent, when the reality is I can show in 2008 that I said the Latin Vulgate contains the word of God! See this link: https://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4258&postcount=5
Therefore, I would like to highlight how ridiculous it is, with minimal need for rhetorical effect, that I ever said, meant or implied that if it isn’t PCE, it must be corrupt. The Vulgate is far from the PCE, and I am not denying it was the word of God to those historical Latin-speaking Christians.
Ross’ approach is quite weak and really falls down when we try to find what exactly is his standard of what is the word of God. He seems to be allowing all kinds of things collectively to be the word of God without any specific ultimate form, method or measure. He is left trying to say that “Beer-sheba, Sheba”; “Beer-sheba, and Sheba” and “Beer-sheba, or Sheba” are all concurrently and equally the word of God at Joshua 19:2, even though the count will alter, and the Scripture says there are thirteen cities and their villages.
My approach is way better
Unlike Ross, I begin by pointing to the Scriptures and what the Bible says about itself in relation to its authority, origins and pre-existence.
The Scripture, I can show from Scripture, existed in the mind of God in eternity. (What troubles people get themselves into when they try to use the Greek to change the meaning of the Bible: but the Bible was known to be written in the mind of God, so they oughtn’t throw pencil shavings!) When Heaven was created on the start of day one in Genesis one, the Book was made and in the Heavenly Tabernacle.
Then, after many years, God moved through Moses, who while wrote the first Books of the Bible on Earth, God essentially worked through Moses and put that power into the words in the Earth. Inspiration essentially means putting spirit into, that is, putting the nature of spirit into those words which Moses then was writing (see also John 6:63). While on one level Moses was writing as a human to a human audience, it was actually God writing to mankind.
I think Bryan Ross has been addled by his going to the Greek and trying to Snuffleupagus “breathing out” like the Yahweists teach.
When we see the New Testament authors not quoting word for word the Old Testament, this is not because they were using some changed translation, nor because God is into deliberate or accidental carelessness, but because the same author of the Old (the Holy Ghost) is fit and free to give (and interpret) His own words in the New.
It’s very important to see that Luke quoting Isaiah is itself an inspiration, that Luke’s writing is as much inspired as the former writing of Isaiah. The Holy Ghost varying the wording is part of a Scriptural interpretative model that adds and aids meaning by the preciseness in the variations. Difference itself is new information. All such information is infallible and true, and reconciling it builds the full picture. There is no contradiction between any passage in the Scripture.
But Ross seems to think that variations in the New Testament quotes are the precedent for possible variation in orthography all being acceptable with some sort of latitudinal magnanimousness and perhaps even God ordained. There is little difference between this doublethink and the doctrine of modernist Rick Norris who says the same thing allows for acceptability of various translations. Ross is just being less of an unbeliever than Norris.
Now in the copying process various errors, variations and corruptions occurred. No one can truly be as stupid as Ross makes out in believing that there is an exact sameness in manuscripts over the centuries. So the modernists, Ross and I all agree that there was no single perfect copy of the Bible being passed through time on Earth.
And yet, unlike Ross, I point to the indefatigable rock of the Scripture in Heaven, no matter what waves beat upon the Earth, truth existed there. I also articulate very clearly the doctrine of the scattering and gathering. The Scripture was scattered, and then with the scriptoria, and especially as leading on with the Textus Receptus tradition, we see singular gathered printed copies which begin to reconstitute the Text of Scripture.
Furthermore, in the various translations being made in English from the time of King Henry VIII to the apocalypticon of King James I.
Here we come to the most important point that blows up everything the Ross the arsonist tried to do. He deliberately ignored this teaching about the modes of being of Scripture and its levels of perfection and purity, which ends his entire fake accusation against me.
Read closely. I do not believe that only the KJB is the word of God, yet I do believe it is only the Word for us now and for the world more and more. I do not believe that only the PCE is the word of God, but I do believe if you want to know exactly, precisely to the minutest detail it is true, that the ultimate knowledge of doctrines hang in upon its words and that doctrines therefore are in the balance based upon the very case of the lettering and punctuation marks.
You see, there are seven levels of the Scripture and its form.
First, the Scripture exists in the mind of God, which is also called Theistic Conceptual Realism. It’s a fat load of good being there alone, but because it is revealed in this time of creation first in Heaven and then on Earth for us through the process of inspiration it is good.
So the second form is that it exists in a perfect form written in Heaven. We can prove this from many passages too, such as Psalm 40:7; 119:89, Daniel 10:21 and Hebrews 8:5; 9:19, 23.
The third form is the Scripture itself. Scripture having all the attributes we ascribe to it, such as inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration etc.
So now, taking this third form, we can argue three things:
- That a copy of the Scripture is the word of God,
- That a copy of the Scripture is the word of God to the people who use it as the word of God, and
- That a copy of the Scripture is the word of God in as much as it is faithful and substantively so.
Therefore on this basis the Greek copies of the Scripture in Constantinople, and even the Latin Vulgate was the word of God.
Now we know that there are Textual variations and Translation issues in the Vulgate, so we know that the Vulgate does not match “verbatim” what would exist in Heaven or in the mind of God, but we do know it is accepted in general.
(In fact, the ESV contains the word of God where it matches the KJB, though the ESV be corrupt and the corruption have rendered it practically unusable to a person who has an awakened conscience on these matters.)
The next level, the fourth level, is that of the Text. We can argue for purity of Text. This means a perfect Version, this means a perfect set of Readings. We now point to the King James Bible as being this exactly, as it being the final form of the Received Text.
The next level, the fifth, is that of the translation. We can argue for the purity of the translation. That means a perfect translation, not just a good one like Tyndale or Geneva. We can argue that God’s words have come into English properly and exactly. We can say that the King James Bible is the best translation in the world.
The next level, the sixth, is that of the Edition. One Edition of the King James Bible is better than the others, because of accuracy, because of getting the orthography right. We can argue for a progress in this matter from 1611 to the 20th century. We can see how far advanced the work of Dr Blayney was in 1769.
When I said that Dr Blayney did well, that he had a moral obligation to fix typos and to standardise and improve the English, did you know that Bryan Ross and his friends laughed me to absolute scorn. I cannot understand their attitude at all except to understand it spiritually. I shall not render evil for evil for this, but show that in the love of God, God has given Pastor Ross a fine gift of the benefit of the 1769 work, something good.
Now there are a series of editions of the King James Bible, and editors have worked to fix typographical errors, standardise the spelling and grammar, etc., and there are seven major Editions, which are editions of significant editorial importance, they are the folio Editions of 1611, 1611 again, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1769 and the Pure Cambridge Edition (which is not a folio but exists in a series of various printings). The PCE therefore presents the word of God exactly with proper editing in English.
This brings us to the seventh level, which is the Pure Cambridge Edition, but specifically, a copy-edited form of it, a resolved, exactly correct copy. I didn’t invent the Pure Cambridge Edition, I didn’t make a computer file copy of it based on some sort of “pentecostal experience” or “supernatural guidance”, I did it in line with Providence, and I used a believing textual analytical method. The setting and setting forth of the PCE as a resolved and acknowledgeable perfect textual form therefore presents the word of God exactly correctly to the letter.
Now Ross has quite wrongly said that I say that my holding to the Pure Cambridge Edition (level 6) invalidates every manuscript and copy and Bible (level 3), every Bible version (level 4) and every translation (level 5) and every other edition of the King James Bible. This is so blatantly wrong, and yet he has built his entire attack on me on this silly and false syllogism.
It should be obvious that every edition of the KJB has the same version and translation, and therefore how could I be casting them out on that ground? The fact is that I personally only strive to use the PCE of the KJB for the reason of love of accuracy and wanting to ensure reliance on the exactness of the very presentation of truth.
And so, at the last, we have, before the end of the world, a very perfect, precise and exact knowledge of the very words of God to the very details and possible grasping of the very nuance of meaning, by having a perfect form of the PCE, which in itself answers here below to that which is above in Heaven.
Semantics required for conceptual accuracy
The fundamental foundation of my belief system, and of the argument for the KJB and the PCE, is that worlds are framed by the word of God, and that the “word of God” is made up of words, and words have meanings. Therefore, exactness of meaning is rooted in exactness of words.
(This is, I am sure, what the rabbis thought too, after their own fashion. My own theological belief, being Word and Spirit, is built directly upon Word of Faith theology, and this emphasis on words as “containers” is central. The Puritan Calvinist, being primarily a legalist, also shares the centrality of God’s law being communicated by words, that words have meaning, because the law is words of meaning. And so, language is a kind of presuppositional framework that exists, it comes from the mind of God, and it enters creation, which is why we call our Saviour by the title Word. The modernists, in their foolishness, have called Him Logos, but I say that we must dominate the Platonic understanding and plunder their words and use words in a Christian way, and not subject Christianity to Platonism.)
Words matter. Things cannot exist except words describe them, and the perfect form of the things exist because they exist in the mind of God, therefore, Theistic Conceptual Realism (the ideas that God knows) dominates Nominalism (mere words). Meaning requires words, just as God’s ideas were expressed by the divine utterance and reverberance in creation, And God said!
Bryan Ross is so far from these mysteries, floundering about with his six different spellings of a word, that he cannot detect that perfection is come.
He cannot accept that the very truth is communicated precisely by jots and tittles which are necessary for conveying the exact sense of the Scripture.
He accuses me of believing in “verbatim identicality”, yet I do not believe in such a thing, but I do believe in the perfect Scripture in Heaven being the progenitor of perfection that is here now in the whole world, and that its force is of full effect in its operation in the Earth.
I can point to scripture reference after scripture reference of promises, prophecies and implications that we should have the Bible perfectly and exactly before the end of the world.
Of course, any edition of the King James Bible which, at the point where it is varying from the PCE, is at that point not giving the “exact sense”.
Doctrine, statutes, precepts, the very nature of our religion, is based upon the legal nature of covenant agreements and written testaments. Righteousness is measured by the very exact “every last whit” of the law.
The specific and exact state, word order and lettering of Scripture has an effect on nuance, concept and meaning. Therefore, the very letters of the King James Bible are important, because life and death can depend upon them.
Ross intentionally misreads me as though a world of meaning exists in a letter “w” sitting by itself on a piece of paper made by the calligrapher’s art. Ross writes, “Whole doctrines in the Bible do not hang on letters; they hang on Bible verses in context”. This is exaggerated nonsense about a single letter hung with doctrines. But in that a letter changes doctrine, in a verse, in context, that is evident: “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.” (Galatians 3:16).
So, a letter does make a difference. When we look at editorial variations, we would not be so foolish as to not correct typographical errors, and we would be not so foolish as to insist that “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (in Joel 2:28) is identical or else meaninglessly distinct to “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh” (in Acts 2:17). Every word matters, every capital letter matters, even dots matter.
I cannot believe that Ross would stoop so low as to use such a willfully “on the spectrum” style of gullible reasoning to accuse me by saying, “The way doctrines are derived in the Bible is not by looking at a single letter or word in a single verse.” As we can see here, I am using a variety of letters making words and typing out a response here which you can read and which makes sense. I am not striking the letter “L” over and again on my keyboard as if one letter is going to do anything by itself. I mean, how does it edify anyone if I really was doing what Ross suggests and I was abasing myself before the letter “L” and insisting it, in some sort of new religious cult-like way, was some angular power to whack his lambda?
Surely Ross knows he is being dishonest. Surely he knows I am not saying that some mere letter on a page in the Bible itself is full of doctrines. Surely he knows what the nuance of “Glistering Truths” shows.
Ross can easily observe that I actually teach that the “neesings” of the leviathan is full of meaning that is not merely the same as someone sneezing. Now, I know how Ross will run to the Oxford English Dictionary, and claim with umpteen examples that “neesing” was a 17th century form of “sneezing”. I can imagine Ross right now pumping AI for info, that neesing is just an old and archaic spelling for sneezing. But he has missed the point: the Bible trumps the dictionary, and adhering to the divine trumps mere human reasoning.
We approach Scripture with a believing sense of wonder, we don’t impose fake criteria by sullying Bible words with the tyranny of subjective opinion and dictionary dictatorships. Dictionaries are tools, they are servants, they exist downstream from the Providential supply of words and their meanings. We should not be so foolish as people like Mark Ward who petulantly proclaim that usage determines meaning. Divine usage, not human usage, determines meaning.
Let us humble ourselves gladly to then find out what “ensamples” means rather than just say it must be the same as “examples”. To ignore or conflate them would be anti-intellectualism or vain deceit.
Ross also makes a weird accusation that I did not get my views on the PCE by comparing Bible verses. I assume he means the comparing of Scripture with Scripture, and I assume he is meaning a doctrine about there being a perfect exact standard of God’s words. Well then, Pastor Ross can be assured that the entire doctrine of the PCE is based upon Scripture. I also appeal to Providential and internal arguments, but the entire argument is built upon Scripture, it is itself a scriptural doctrine. I’ll be happy to give him an extensive list of Bible verses, but I know already what he will say. He will find it incompatible to interpret the Scripture that way, because I know the problem actually lays in how he interprets Scripture. He’s demonstrated that with how he rejects the teaching of Matthew 5:18.
In fact, Ross came up with his “verbal equivalence” by just trying to explain (wrongly) why New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are not identical. Other than that wresting, his views and his rejection of the PCE are nothing really to do with Scripture.
And so we arrive at the nonsense position of Ross, as if that “alway” and “always” are the same word spelt two different ways. It’s very easy to prove in all kinds of ways that these are two different words with different meanings. Ross has committed himself in writing that they are not different, that they don’t present a different sense. His position is forced to accommodate the places where editions which vary the spelling, orthography, wording or made typos and to uphold them (those places that differ) as equal to what the PCE has now. (Obviously, Bryan Ross accepts the PCE is an edition, but he deliberately tries to deny its specialness.)
Answering Ross’ accusations
Ross wrote accusingly of me, “He developed his position on the PCE through private interpretation (his Pentecostalism & Historicist interpretation of Revelation) to determine what he thinks the reality of the printed text should be, rather than what the actual reality was.”
This is loaded with wrong and false accusations.
I did not argue for the Pure Cambridge Edition based on private interpretation at all, it is based upon open analysis, providence and tradition.
The accusation that I used some sort of “Pentecostal” experiences to determine the PCE is just completely made up, and I have rejected this ridiculous accusation many times.
I also did not use the Historicist interpretation of Revelation to develop my position on the PCE. In fact, I did not understand Historicism very much when first studying about the PCE. I have written on multiple occasions about how I came to understand about the PCE, and Ross can easily correct himself by reading my several accounts.
It was later that I found in Historicist writings that they pointed to the King James Bible in how they interpreted Revelation 10. In general, I did not initially build or understand the case about the PCE as based on Historicist prophecy.
It is strange that Ross refers to the “reality” of the Pure Cambridge Edition. What is his “reality”? That we cannot get exactness in editing? I’d sure like to know how Ross proposes to have an exactly correct printing of the King James Bible. The history of editing from 1611 to 1769 is obvious, but why doesn’t Ross be more clear in recognising the improvement in the printed history?
Things are heading somewhere, editing has not been for no reason. It staggers belief that Ross would be fighting so hard to reject a post-1769 standard edition. Is he denying that God would want to get a correctly edited KJB Edition for the Body of Christ?
I also can’t understand how he doesn’t recognise that words mean something, his reluctance to get exactness, and his trying to just make “throughly” and “thoroughly” the same. If KJBOs didn’t make an academically rigorous case for the distinction in meanings then why not make an academically proposition to understand why there are detectable differences (according to God’s academia, not the worldly peer-reviewed mafia).
Apparently he doesn’t understand how constitutions and the courts work. Words are full of meaning, but if words can just be just smudged because they seem similar, then I think Ross would be the most sloppy lawyer in the world.
In all of this, Ross’ attacks have done one thing, and that is make me explain more, and I expect it all is more of an encouragement for believers to:
* stick with the reputable Pure Cambridge Edition
* understand and stay with the “glistering truths”
* align with Divine Providence
Conclusion
Pastor Ross may continue in the same denial he seems to hold to but never articulate: that the Scripture cannot have an ultimate final, exact form on Earth. He needs to see that all things move with purpose instead of “verbal equivalence” of general ideas, of approximation, which avoids admitting that God’s Word is communicated in words, not in loose impressions. And because he rejects exactness in the written form, he cannot penetrate a standard beyond conceptual boundaries.
But creation itself testifies otherwise. The sun shines as one light. So too with Scripture. Many copies may vary, many translations may obscure, but the light of truth itself has a penetrating form. Not because man contrived it, but “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).
Heaven and Earth follow patterns. The tabernacle below reflected the pattern above; the law given had a heavenly origin; the Scripture is both divine in source and earthly in manifestation. This correspondence is what God designs in perfection and brings to completion in history. Ross seems to be ignorant of this principle, though it be through the whole Bible.
I stand for that God’s Word existed eternally in His mind,
was written perfectly in Heaven,
was given and used throughout all ages as Scripture on Earth,
was gathered through the Received Text,
translated exactly into English for the world,
edited providentially into a standard Edition,
and resolved in a stable and exact form.
This is not private interpretation, it is not whimsical opinion, but the belief in a precise God with an actual set of words telling exactly what we need to know. We can enter into every exact nuance of doctrine by knowing we have every jot and tittle in its right order.
