Introduction
On the first Sunday in January 2026, Pastor Bryan Ross gave another presentation, number 272 in his series on looking at the history of the King James Bible (KJB) text. (Which has a spelling mistake in the title, he turned “tenets” into “tenants”, a mistake I’ve also made in the past.)
In his presentation, he has attempted to present himself as neutral, historical, logical, etc., in his dealing with (i.e. against) a position that upholds one particular edition of the KJB as best, right and good.
Interestingly he has moved from dealing with an edition itself on its own merits, to the promotion of that edition and the character of its chief promoter, Matthew Verschuur of bibleprotector.com (the author of this response).
Ross is motivated against an exclusive use or upholding of a particular edition for various reasons.
His motivations have resulted in him being driven therefore to selectively marshal quotes, interpret writings and ignore or collapse distinctions held by Bible Protector in order to have rhetorical propagandist effect.
In this, we can show that Ross’ critiques are not fair, somewhat misframing ideas, misapplying an onus of correction for clarity onto Bible Protector (i.e. gaslighting me for being misinterpretable) and filtering comments through his own doctrinal, philosophical, etc. bias.
Basically Ross is trying to make out that to hold a particular edition as “exclusive” is extreme, and that this ties into his personal problems with my views. I can understand how Ross would be uncomfortable with someone like me having different doctrinal views than him presenting something which, in its own self, is there for Ross.
I guess Ross should learn from the analogy of King James, who held vastly different doctrines and views than Ross, yet he can accept the Version made under his name. And since the PCE already was edited in the early 1900s, surely Ross should be able to at least accept the concept of having a general terms of reference standard, to have an edition as a editorial representative in a definitive way of what is an accurately printed and orthographically exact standard.
Framing by selective quotation emphasis
Ross mines quotes from my materials, and then he asserts what he thinks those statements “must logically imply.”
Selective quotation can be accurate and still misleading. When he takes various short portions of what I wrote in my draft, he marshals them to in such a way so as to more reconstruct than analyse.
In doing so, Ross constructs a picture of the PCE position that is stricter, flatter and more exclusivist than what it actually is.
He is therefore engaging in contextual reframing in how he editorialises commentary on what I wrote, reading in and implying things I did not state.
The onus and misunderstanding early development
Ross went (selectively) through some of the background of how I was looking into editions. Even though I had began from a place of uncertainty, I was using the logic of Henry Hills, Dean Burgon, Oliver Cromwell and Church history. The approach therefore was providentialist not Pentecostalist (which I am sure Ross also misunderstands, not knowing of the farflung spectrum of Pentecostal beliefs exceeding the spectrum of different Baptists).
Ross also tries to put the onus on me. He reads something I wrote and then tries to drive things beyond or even opposite of what I have said or meant. He then says that it is up to me to essentially rewrite something so that he doesn’t misinterpret it. That is completely uncharitably holding a person to ransom by essentially knowingly saying that they are meaning something they do not mean, and then saying that I would have to change my writings so he doesn’t misinterpret them.
Levels of purity: Ross’ central category error
The most consequential flaw in Ross’ critique is his refusal to engage in my multi-level framework of purity, despite clear evidence that Ross understands such distinctions exist. At the heart of a lot of Ross’ misunderstanding is a refusal to engage a layered bibliology, one that distinguishes where and how Scripture exists in purity in different levels. The PCE position is not a flat ontology in which Scripture can exist in only one form at one time. Rather, it recognises levels of purity and representation:
- Scripture itself
- In the mind of God — pure and perfect
- In Heaven — pure and perfect
- In the autographs — pure and perfect
- In faithful copies and translations
- Text/Version/Readings
- The Textus Receptus tradition
- Foreign and English Protestant translations
- The King James Bible (1611) — pure and perfect
- Translation
- Protestant English translations from Tyndale through the KJB
- The KJB itself — pure and perfect
- Edition
- Specific editorial forms (e.g., 1769, later Cambridge editions)
- The Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) itself — pure and perfect
- Setting
- A particular, editorially stable instantiation of the PCE by having a text file with no typographical error — pure and perfect
Ross repeatedly collapses these levels into one flat category, then accuses the PCE position of denying or being “more” Scripture than elsewhere. That conclusion only follows because Ross deliberately ignores the framework altogether, and he does so from his biased viewpoint rather than fair dealing.
Of course the PCE cannot be more pure than Scripture in Heaven or the autographs. Of course the PCE can be completely correct without denying or being against other levels of manifestations of Scripture.
It is completely unfair, like comparing apples and oranges, to just the purity of an edition with the purity of a version. What needs to be understood is that a version needs a pure edition to represent it. The purity of a version is presented correct in an edition. Yet the concepts remain separate, dealing with a version in a textual critical way is entirely different to dealing with typesetting in a orthographic and copy-editorial way. They relate in both being able to be present or not.
(Think about having a typographically correct ESV. That might be an accurately presented form of the ESV, but its Readings and Translation are still wrong. However, when we say the ESV, we would really want to be saying the typographically accurate form, because that is just common sense. It is not as if inaccurate printed copies are not the ESV.)
Purity as a continuum
Ross seems to insist that terms like “final purification” and “perfect” must mean something like as if this was the first time God’s Word was pure on earth, as though God’s Word was previously impure or unavailable. This is a category error.
Yet there are all kinds of I have said which contradict the way Ross tries to frame me, for example, I say that God’s Word is always pure in Heaven, Scripture was available and effective in the distant past.
The finality with the PCE is to do with editorial culmination, not to the first appearance of purity. To read it otherwise is to collapse editorial history into an ideological absolutism as if no one had the “really real” Scripture until now.
Ross knows a lot of this, yet he persists with his narrative, claiming that I will produce materials complaining about him. He anticipates this because he knows he is doing things that deserve censure.
Ross should be careful about becoming another Justin Peters, and also consider about the danger of fighting divine providence.
Doctrine, language and bias
Ross’ critique is not doctrinally neutral. His resistance to the PCE position is shaped by identifiable commitments:
- Mid-Acts Dispensationalism
- Cessationism and anti-Pentecostalism
- A specific and restrictive Historical-grammatical hermeneutic
- A low view of providential editorial history
- A philosophy of language that resists letter-level theological significance
- Opposition to forms of authoritarianism and absolutism
Underlying much of Ross’ opposition is a philosophy of language that resists precision. If spelling, capitalisation and punctuation are assumed to be conceptually indifferent, then any claim to letter-level exactness will appear unnecessary or even dangerous.
Ross seems to think that doctrine, meaning or sense is not affected by the small parts of language.
I affirm that doctrinal nuance, conceptual association and sense are communicated by construction, syntax, vocabulary and that words and grammar form part of this, meaning importance of spelling, capitalisation and punctuation.
Ross rejects this premise a priori, then criticises the conclusions that follow from it.
“Glistering Truths” and Relative Precision
Ross seems to portray as if I am claiming that correct doctrine only exists in the PCE. This is wrong. Correct doctrine is communicated in all levels or layers of what Scripture is, but obviously text and translation do affect the understanding of it.
So if we were to compare an Oxford or a Cambridge KJB, obviously there is going to be no difference on Creation, Sin, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Rapture, etc. The claim is not that the PCE uniquely teaches the Trinity or the deity of Christ.
In fact, even on very small points of meaning, the differences between a Cambridge and an Oxford are very tiny. Yet, at every last whit, at every last detail, on just a word or letter here or there, there is still something very small. It is a matter of having exactly the very words of God.
Ross should understand that the PCE view is the maximal editorial precision that best preserves every nuance of doctrine, meaning, sense and conceptual precision.
The difference is one of degree. The PCE therefore is by design a preservation of doctrine with the greatest editorial fidelity.
Let’s be honest, but even a loose paraphrase may contain Scripture where it aligns with the highest standards.
After all, it was the 1629, 1638, 1769, etc. which had “spirit” lower case in 1 John 5:8, so this should not be lightly rejected today.
Key criteria
In relation to the list of key criteria of identifying the PCE, Ross has misunderstood, because it is possible to construct a complete and definitive list of differences between the PCE and the Oxford 1769 Folio, or between the PCE and the Concord or the PCE and an Oxford printing of the 20th century.
That list of key criteria is just a checklist to discern the PCE, not definitively but sufficiently, and further, that list has become the way to define a PCE or not.
Ross asks, “How does Verschuur know this list is complete?” Answer: It is a definitive list to discern a PCE, it is not all the differences or checks for all editions as far as every single reading difference.
Ross asks, “Could there be other changes that could be significant according to his argument?” Answer: These aren’t necessarily all significant or even the most significant, they are just indicative places, which would be usual to find some levels of differences between Thomas Nelsons, Americanised Editions, Oxfords, Zondervan, etc.
Ross asks, “How can one be sure?” Answer: Sure that an edition is the PCE? The PCE has been published by Cambridge etc. since at least 1911 if not earlier and printings of the PCE, including from other publishers printing the PCE, show conformity to a particular editorial text, e.g. that will have “Geba” at Ezra 2:26. So it is empirically and objectively known, this is not a Verschuur claim, this is an objective reality that everyone can observe, e.g. David Norton observed the 20th century/current text.
Therefore, the list is diagnostic not exhaustive.
Phenomena and Providence
Ross takes a mocking tone towards a few references to earthquakes, comets and historical events as if they are essential proof claims.
I am noting these historical facts as phenomena not as a basis of truth.
After all, there is a lot to show how Kepler’s Star is associated with the inception of the King James Bible. Since God is in control of history, and there are convergencies between “signs and wonders” of Genesis 1 (for example) and God’s outworking in history, this is because God’s will is done and because the Most High does rule.
Ross’ labouring of the issue trying to insinuate or create sensationalism is a rhetorical distraction.
Public Articulation vs. Historical Reality
Ross seems to be implying that because the PCE position was publicly articulated only from 2007, it may lack legitimacy.
This confuses recognition with existence.
- The PCE text existed decades earlier
- Cambridge printings demonstrate editorial stability
- Public articulation itself does not create, it identifies
By this logic, many doctrines would be invalid until first formally systematised. I imagine people turning down Nicaean doctrines in 326 because they were a year old, or someone rejecting the KJB in 1612 because it was a year old.
Recent expression does not imply novelty of substance.
This article continues
In Part Two of this article, I’m going to show explicitly Bryan Ross misunderstanding me.