The King James Bible was made in 1611 as a product of translators translating. Then, over the years, as it would be expected copy-editors and editors have done editorial work.
The editorial work has not been to change, edit, fix or corrupt the translation, it has rather been to correct typographical errors, standardise grammar and spelling, regularise elements of the English presentation and the like.
Having said that, some work by American publishers has been dangerous in its direction, such as trying to change a word like “bewray” which has one meaning to the similar looking word “betray” which has quite another.
But in normal editions, from 1611 to the present time, the translation has not been altered. The translation means the words used in English to present what was first written in the original languages.
Early in my “remote” debate with Bryan Ross of early 2026, I found that Ross essentially believes that editing the King James Bible changes the translation of the King James Bible. He tried to backtrack by explaining, through someone, that he meant that you would have to look at the originals in relation to changing the italics.
Ross now says in a document, “I show that one cannot simultaneously affirm a perfectly preserved translation and a uniquely perfect edition without contradiction”. Hence, Ross must believe that the editing in editions changes the translation.
It is interesting that he hides this statement in his final summary of the debate. Earlier, I called him out on this erroneous belief, and he and his friends acted like it was a very bad thing to question this. In fact, the emotion in one of the volatile responses indicated to me at the time the real nature of where this was all at.
I expect that there has been some emotional reaction in relation to the conflict that Ross and his friends have had with other King James Bible people.
It is apparent now that Ross has departed from a proper understanding of the King James Bible, in that he has allowed wrong ideas from the modernist David Norton to cloud his assessment on editions, to the point where he thinks that editorial work within the history of the KJB is really changing the translation.
So let’s properly understand the reality here.
ONE. SCRIPTURE. The Scripture is true, whether in the autographs, original language copies, Textus Receptus editions, foreign translations or in English Reformation translations.
TWO. VERSION. The gathered text of the Scripture, while is present in Textus Receptus editions, is actually finalised, exact and perfect in the King James Bible. These are the readings of the Authorized Version.
THREE. TRANSLATION. The turning of the originals into English has been done since the Reformation, from Tyndale to the King James Bible, but the best and perfectly correct translation is the King James Bible’s translation.
If there are words today that people do not understand or label as “archaic”, this accusation or assessment cannot withstand that the King James Bible’s translation is right, and that its particular word choices are correct.
FOUR. EDITION. The editing of the King James Bible has occurred generally progressively, and is primarily concerned with the correction of typographical errors, standardised grammar and spelling and other regularisation. The best and correct Edition is the Pure Cambridge Edition.
FIVE. SETTING FORTH. Each time a setting or an edition is made of an Edition, it may accidentally have some typographical error of the presswork, or it may contain some copy-editorial level variation in a letter or a hyphen mark. These exceedingly minor issues have been dealt with, in that the Bible Protector website has put out scrupulously correct typographically exact text files of the Pure Cambridge Edition, so that this setting is the derivative exemplary master of them all.
We cannot confuse things in the number four or five category with number three category. They are entirely separate to each other. This is not to deny that there are attacks on the King James Bible’s translation, but these are in some sorts of updated or modernised “new” KJVs, not in normal editions from normal publishers.
Ross states, again, “I show that one cannot simultaneously affirm a perfectly preserved translation and a uniquely perfect edition without contradiction”. The problem is that Ross does not show this at all: he utterly fails to show this, because the King James Bible translation of 1611 is entirely present in current editions, and there is no contradiction at all.
The Pure Cambridge Edition presents exactly and properly the KJB translators’ work. Editing ensures that the intended meaning and translation of the KJB men is presented today.