Category Archives: Editorial

Ruckman and Riggs


There are two examples that enemies of the King James Bible’s perfection like to bring up. The first is Ruth 3:15 and the second is Jeremiah 34:16.

In Ruth 3:15, the First 1611 Edition read at the last part of the verse, “and he went into the citie.” Compare that to today, where it says, “and she went into the city.”

The change from “he” to “she” happened in the Second 1611 Edition. Sometimes it has been printed “he” over the years, but most editions have “she”, and that is by far the common wording seen today.

The other example is Jeremiah 34:16, where today’s Cambridge Editions read, “But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.” But Oxford Editions have, “whom he”.

Enemies mention these two examples because they ask, “which one of these two words are inspired? Is it ‘he’ or ‘she’? Is it ‘he’ or ‘ye’?” Etc.


Peter S. Ruckman was a well known King James Bible only teacher in the second half of the twentieth century. He even wrote several articles on these issues.

“Our problem text today is from Ruth Chapter 3. This is one of the ‘last resorts’ used by the Cult to prove a ‘contradiction’ in the AV. The thinking behind this is that some editions of the AV had ‘SHE went into the city’ while others said ‘HE went into the city’ … Now the fact is, they BOTH ‘went into the city.’ Observe Ruth 3:16 — Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, is IN THE CITY. Observe Ruth 4:1 — Boaz had to go into the city to get to ‘the gate.’ Either reading would have been the truth of God without contradiction.”

“’She went into the city’ has been corrected from ‘He went into the city’ (Ruth 3:15), which constituted no error for both of them went into the city, which is perfectly apparent to anyone who can read two-syllable words.”

Ruckman approaches the King James Bible as if it literally is the truth of God, and if he finds it saying “he”, then he says that that is true, and if he finds it saying “she”, he will say it is true, and now he finds that some editions have “he” and others “she”, he is forced to say that both are concurrently correct, that both must be right.

He does the same when holding an Oxford and a Cambridge on his desk. I wrote to Peter Ruckman years ago about this issue, his secretary wrote back saying that either are correct, though that he preferred the Cambridge.

“Well, BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (‘ye’ in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (‘he’ in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13).”

Ruckman did not seem to insist on the idea that there was one true set of words, or that one reading should be preferred over another. In fact, he went as far as D. A. Waite did, and talked about the Hebrew.


God’s word is truth. When it comes to Ruth 3:15, this was clearly a typographical error, because it was corrected straight away the same year.

Now I know that Scrivener thought that “she” is the typographical error, but even his fellow scholars disagreed with him on that point.

The reality is that we are to regard the very words of God.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4.

God does not speak in contradictions, and he does not have alternative readings to what He said.

But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 2 Corinthians 1:18

God’s true word in Heaven is an absolute set of words, there is no shadow of turning with them. Purity demands the right words, not two differing and opposing words!

Thus, it is madness to think that “he” and “she” could both be correct, when it has to be one or the other.

Again, truth compels us not to serve two masters, but we must choose between Cambridge and Oxford.

Importantly, since the Cambridge can be shown right at all such places of difference between it and the Oxford, it must be right here also.

One simply does not have to go to the Hebrew to explain or find any truth.

Continue reading

Refuting Bryan Ross again


Bryan Ross, an American Baptist pastor, used to believe that Matthew 5:18 was referring to the jots and tittles of Scripture.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18).

Even Textus Receptus Onlyist D. A. Waite understood that this verse was speaking about the written Scripture, though he applied it to the original languages only, at least saw that it applied to the New Testament as much as it did the Old.

But Bryan Ross has come to question this interpretation altogether, seemingly denying God’s care for the very parts of letters of His Scripture, and now taking a position, in alignment with modernists, that this verse is only talking about promises in the Old Testament about Jesus, and not about the words and letters that contain those promises. In other words, Pastor Ross has completely disconnected the meaning of the passage from the implication that God’s words, God’s law itself, is made up of words and letters.

People win court cases over a comma in the constitution or a law! When we are told that God’s law is perfect, surely the very form of it, the very writing must needs be perfect in and of itself!

How did Bryan Ross come to question the obvious, natural interpretation of this passage? Well, he began by being bamboozled by walking by sight. Specifically, he read in a book by David Norton that there had been changes made by editors in the King James Bible. (How that was a shock to any Norman Normal out there, I don’t know.)

Now this is rather strange, since F. H. A. Scrivener had written about this in 1873 and 1884. And that D. A. Waite had made copies available of Scrivener’s book. I’d written about the subject since 2007 online too. So how is it that Bryan Ross turned to Norton’s book, and instead of thinking like I did, or like D. A. Waite did, he started to approach the thinking of Norton and began to think like the modernists?

And so, seeing editorial changes (more than just Norton’s data), he accepted elements of Norton’s perspective.

Bryan Ross has written, “My decision to use David Norton’s book A Textual History of the King James Bible to frame this discussion came under scrutiny this past week on social media. It has been asserted that Professor Norton is unsaved and therefore is not to be trusted in his reporting of textual data/facts. This assertion is coupled with the premise that Norton edited his own edition of the KJB from Cambridge University Press called the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (NCPB). I have never supported or advocated for the NCPB. Just because Norton makes editorial decisions in his NCPB that I would not approve of does not mean that his presentation of the textual facts as it relates to the printed history of the KJB text are in error. One needs to distinguish between Norton’s cataloging of textual variants in the printed history of the King James text and his editorial work on the NCPB.”

I personally questioned why Bryan Ross was relying heavily upon Norton, but it certainly was not me who said that Norton could not be trusted in his reporting of data/facts. I in fact, do trust what he records about the 1611 to the present time. What I strongly disagree with is his interpretation of that data, his turning to an 1602 manuscript as being an alleged draft and his going to the original languages in how he then makes judgments on editing. (Besides his modernisation of the KJB and weird changes in places.)

Further, I said that it appeared that Norton was not an evangelical.

But if Bryan Ross is representing what I said, then he is grossly misrepresenting me, as badly as he has accused others of misrepresenting others.

Let me say that I am very much against the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, and it is pleasing to see that Ross says he is also not advocating for it.

Bizarrely it appears as if he is attempting to lecture me on distinguishing between Norton’s catalogues and Norton’s editorial work, when that is exactly my position — has Bryan Ross read my materials?!

Norton’s method is to compare editorial variations in the printed history of the KJB with an annotated 1602 manuscript from the Bodleian Library (which may have been annotated after 1611) and reference to the original languages.

What Bryan Ross is fighting against is the simplistic idea that spelling changes and typographical errors are the only thing that ever happened in the printed history of the KJB. I understand that. But instead of taking a balanced or reasoned view (e.g. consulting multiple sources like Scrivener, Norris, me etc.) Ross has limited himself to only Norton. Now, I don’t actually advocate for the so-called “balanced” view, but that’s how modern academia works, which is that you should look at multiple perspectives when studying a discipline, not railroad yourself to the scholarship of one man.

Free self promotion here, but my material is freely available and Ross could use that to augment or “counterbalance” a sole reliance on Norton… of course, he could primarily follow in my path, which is at least is not discounting D. A. Waite and Gail Riplinger … and I am not 100% with either of those two people’s positions, but I think we should be fair and friendly and take up when teachers have said the right things or helped further the good cause of God’s words. To be very honest, I could not have written my monograph Glistering Truths without having read materials from both Waite and Riplinger.

So it almost looks like Byran Ross is disconnecting with all of one side, but connecting with Norton and liaising with anti-King James Bible agitator Mark Ward (without being in full agreement with either of those two.)

Though the warning is:

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3).

Continue reading

Bryan Ross’ rejection of jot and tittle perfection


Today, like a solar storm, a new contention has come to pass, which is something called the denial of the ultimate very jots and tittles of Scripture being manifest and known in the Earth.

Pastor Bryan Ross is an American teacher who has been investigating claims of various King James Bible only people. Like me, he has sought to distance himself from crazy claims and better articulate some claims that are made by King James Bible onlyists. For example, I think there is no such thing as an “Antioch stream” of Bibles.

I recently had a discussion with Bryan Ross, and he indicates he is not retreating to a mere Textus Receptus onlyist position. But on the other hand, when discussing the issues of variations in words like “stablish” versus “establish”, Ross appealed to the original languages and argued that these words were essentially the same.

In part, this is because Ross has seen in American KJB editions variations of spelling on words, and in order to justify this, he attempts to argue that since the Americans were varying around words (he claims just spellings) that something like “stablish” and “establish” must be synonymous. (After all variations of this sort are to be found even in 1611, in regard to “thoroughly” and “throughly”.)

These are different words with different meanings. As I’ve shown clearly in my book Glistering Truths (get it here), words like “alway” versus “always” or “farther” versus “further” are different, and so too are “stablish” and “establish”. It’s no use relying solely on 1611 when orthography and spelling was not yet standard, but we see huge progress in this through the early Cambridge editorial revisions and in Blayney’s Oxford work, to our final Pure Cambridge Edition of today.

Bryan Ross argues that because in Greek or Hebrew the same word might be translated to similar words, that those English words are really the same. Hence his ultimate appeal is to the original languages and not English of the KJB. This makes him look very much like a TRO, though he has stated that he thinks that the KJB is right.

I have taken the approach of relying on English alone, especially in relation to looking at the internal nature of the editing and grammar of the King James Bible.

Dean Burgon said, “If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.” (Revision Revised, page 190). Now obviously this is talking about translation, but the principle applies directly into editorial distinctiveness, which does convey the translation (that is, the meaning).

There are subtleties of nuance, in a way, worlds of meaning between these different words in English. Those differences, just like the “stablish” and “establish” differences, are vital for conveying the very sense of the Scripture. It is said that Martin Luther taught that we must tremble before every syllable of Scripture, that no iota is in vain. And as the Westminster Confession lays out, Scripture is truly in our own language of English. Therefore, this right kind of zeal towards the very words and letters in English.

That’s why we should stay with the proper editing of the King James Bible and uphold the very accuracy of the letters as to be found in the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Continue reading

Confusion about W. Aldis Wright’s 1611 reprint

There’s a website called “Original Bibles”, which I won’t link here, but which is purporting to have the “Pure Cambridge Edition”. Except it isn’t. What they have on their website is the 1611 Reprint as edited by W. Aldis Wright, which was made in 1909. It’s a good resource text to know what was printed in 1611, but it clearly is NOT the Pure Cambridge Edition.

I’ve contacted them, or tried to find out what their reasoning is, to no satisfaction. They obviously have their aim of listing various pdfs of old Bible printings. That’s reasonable enough, but it’s evident that they are using the words “Pure Cambridge Edition” inaccurately.

They admit that their 1611 Reprint does not match the PCE, since the PCE has spirit not Spirit in 1 John 5:8, saying that this test “is not met. We are looking into this matter and should post further updates in due course.”

To find out about the real Pure Cambridge Edition, just read this website. Have a look at the blog articles below.

Especially useful is this book which shows the actual dates of the PCE and also that their 1909 is a 1611 Reprint:

Answering Alan O’Reilly

Alan O’Reilly is one of those obscure people who actually sort of believes that the 1769 Edition of the KJB itself is the perfect Word of God. He states, “It took millennia for God to perfect it, the task not being finalised until Dr Benjamin Blayney’s AV1611 Edition of 1769 but Final Authority is and always will be the 1611 Authorised English Holy Bible”.

Except, he realises that there a few small issues with the 1769, so he has to encompass all editions, like Oxford, London, Cambridge Concord, PCE, etc., in other words, he is clumsily trying to tell us that he supports the 1769 family.

He says that his word/Scripture from God is “the 1611 Holy Bible in its current bona fide perfected editions that follow Dr Blayney’s 1769 Oxford Edition. With the understanding that perfection does not mean verbatim, the Cambridge Cameo and Cambridge Concord Editions are two such perfected editions even though they differ in a number of minuscule aspects from each other and from the 1769 Oxford Edition.”

As you can see, he can’t actually have the 1769 as his final standard because he knows the Cambridge Concord and the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) came after it and that they all differ to each other!

So he refers to the “book of the LORD” and is talking about perfection, but actually cannot define exactly where the exact words are… this is because he has confused the concept of version and translation with Edition (let alone setting). What he doesn’t get is that the Book of the Lord is first of all the Scripture itself, and then it is the version and translation of the King James Bible. Quite separate to that agreed truth, we have to see that we want a properly edited form of the King James Bible. Yes, Blayney’s work is good, but it certainly is not precisely perfect editing.

The Blayney Bible of 1769 is perfect in as much as the version and translation of 1611 is perfect. So that’s not the perfect we need to be talking about. We need to know what actually is correct right down to the very words and spellings. Well, Mr O’Reilly can’t tell us that, because he is busy with his arms wide saying all the editions which follow from 1769 and their little differences here and there. It seems like there is a pantheon.

He then tries to say that Dr Blayney’s 1769 Oxford Edition is “the standard edition for current bona fide perfected editions”. But how can a standard precede what came after it which is perfected? Isn’t it, as the translators of 1611 themselves stated,

“Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us”?

Well, we know that the PCE is better than the 1769.

Mr O’Reilly then takes the 12 tests to identify the PCE and analyses them in comparison to the 1769. That’s really not how the tests are to be used, as there are lists available from my website which give a more comprehensive list of differences between the PCE and 1769, and also I have a list comparing the PCE with the Cambridge text that was being printed prior to it. (As well as information on the PCE versus the Concord.)

Just using the 12 tests method, he concludes that the PCE follows the 1769 four times and restores 1611 readings eight times. This is an unscientific methodology, seeing as the PCE as a whole is like a Cambridge form of the 1769 with a few corrections, which mathematically would make it probably more than 99.99% the same as the 1769 Edition.

Mr O’Reilly then makes another kindergarten level statement, writing, “The Cambridge Cameo and PCE Pure Cambridge Edition match for all 12 readings.” If he bothered to understand what the PCE is, he would know that (a.) the PCE has been printed in many editions including the Cameo for many years, (b.) when I made the electronic text of the PCE I extensively consulted a 1938 Cameo and (c.) the Cameo of today is not PCE.

So then, Mr O’Reilly has to admit that he accepts, “the 1769 Oxford and bona fide post-1769 Editions”. Well, that is a step towards the PCE, but the problem is he is keeping his arms wide, so he wants to accept the Concord as right as well, even though the PCE and the Concord are not the same!

He then tries to explain what he calls “PCE onlyism”. He says, “Insistence on the PCE as exclusively the perfect AV1611 comes from a certain Matthew Verschuur in 2007. … He has a useful link to the PCE Text as a PDF but he also lists what I suggest that we can take as his perception of the major differences between the PCE and other AV1611 Editions that don’t follow it 100%.”

So far, what he has tried to do is minimise any of the real differences between 1769 and the PCE, or any real differences between the PCE and the Concord. He wants to keep his arms wide, and redefine what “perfect” or probably words like “exact” or “pure edition” mean.

But notice he introduces the concept that I am one who insists that the PCE is the exclusively perfect AV1611. This of course is imprecise. As I have said many times, the version-text-readings of 1611 and the translation of 1611 are right. That version and that translation is there in 1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1769 and even the Concord Edition… No, as we see, Mr O’Reilly misunderstands my position and seems to imply as if I were saying that the PCE alone is the Word of God and nothing else. Actually, I am saying that only out of editions, there is one perfect Edition.

But because Mr O’Reilly doesn’t understand that, he doesn’t seem to have a perfect, exact or final edition, but his arms are wide and he accepts a group of editions without drilling down to where there are important differences in them.

His view is that the differences between the PCE and say that Concord, or the 1769, are “actually minuscule with no effect on meaning.” Remember he is looking at the 12 tests of the PCE here, so they are not the lists I have made showing notable differences between the Concord and the PCE.

According to Mr O’Reilly, the difference between “spirit” and “Spirit” in Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8 are apparently no problem to him, bizarrely, he says, “both readings are correct because each of those scriptures refers to a Spirit-filled man”. While it is true that these verses are referring to people with the Spirit, what is distinct is that the use of the lower case “spirit” tells us it is the Spirit’s knowledge in the human, which information you don’t get if you have just “Spirit”.

Is Mr O’Reilly really going to suggest that we need to know both editions on this point, because he is implying you need both renderings to get the full information, and such a view is both ridiculous and the very same approach as modernists.

No, what we would need is a perfect presentation of a perfect Book which exclusively shows the truth, which is what the PCE does for us. We see “spirit” and that is the information we need. The contradictory or differing information of “Spirit” is confusion and implies that there is no “one word from God” or one to the letter reliable edition.

But Mr O’Reilly calls the PCE view “fraudulent”. Why? Because of some other unrelated accusation. Apparently “PCE onlyists like Verschuur are no different from other Nicolaitans … trying to lord themselves over ‘the body of Christ’”. That’s a wild accusation of course, that comes completely out of left field.

So now the argument is not about why “spirit” is correct (true), or why “spirit” and “Spirit” are both correct (false), but rather an entirely different view, that somehow a boogey-man like me is saying you can only use one edition as everything else is not right (false!). The fact is I am not saying that and I have even said things to such opposite effect as “the Vulgate is the word of God for people who only know Latin”! So then, one questions why I am such an apparently bad person.

Maybe Mr O’Reilly feels lorded over that the PCE is a correct edition (which of course he willingly won’t admit) but doesn’t like the messenger. So then he has to communistically keep his arms wide and say all editions are right.

Well, it does get that nonsensical. Listen to his ultimate schizophrenic thinking:

“This writer’s view is that the differences listed … are less significant than ‘ye’ Jeremiah 34:16, Cambridge editions and ‘he’ Jeremiah 34:16, Oxford editions. Dr Ruckman has shown that both readings are correct and, as indicated, the supposed difference is ‘a thing of nought.’”

No, “ye” and “he” are two different words with two different meanings. There is no way possible that these two words are both right or mean the same thing, or don’t matter, or is a nothing… if jots and tittles matter, and they do, then a “ye” and a “he” difference must be resolved.

He says, concerning “and” or “or” in Joshua 19:2 that “The variant readings are both correct.” Anyone knows that “and” and “or” are two different logical parameters! They do not mean that same thing, they do not express the same meaning.

He says, concerning the difference at 2 Chronicles 33:19, “The variant readings are both correct.” Variant? If variant, varying from what standard? How can a variation be correct? It has to be one or the other, not both.

Even though “farther” or “further” are two different words, which has been shown from the Oxford English Dictionary itself, he claims they “are interchangeable. The variant readings are both correct.”

He says that when comparing the Oxford with the Cambridge that whether it is “son of David” or “Son of David” apparently it doesn’t matter, “the difference is inconsequential” …

That is all opinion, that is just arbitrarily saying two things are both correct when two different things are not the same!

With his re-definition of my beliefs and his label of “PCE onlyism” he says, “The above notwithstanding, given the potential discouragement to genuine Bible believers that PCE onlyism could cause, it is wise to apply Song of Solomon 2:15 ‘Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.’”

Let us weigh the matter properly. We need to have an exact knowledge of the very words of God. We cannot say that variations are equally true. One word is not the same as another.

Therefore this pathetic attempt to summon the hounds to destroy the little foxes is an utterly ridiculous analogy.

And “Nicolaitans” is the PCE spelling, the standard, unsurprisingly Mr O’ Reilly didn’t use the 1769 and Oxford spelling “Nicolaitanes”. That’s because there really is a standard Edition, and it also seems that God has supplied Mr O’Reilly a Cameo to use.

KJB words not dying: Mark Ward countered

UPDATE. After this article was published, I was contacted by the King James Bible onlyist Mark Ward mentioned, who gave me an account of his conversation with Mark Ward, and explained his views, which differed significantly to how Mark Ward reported the conversation. I have therefore edited this article to reflect this further information.

In a propaganda piece (a youtube video dated 26/1/24), Mark Ward openly argues and states that the King James Bible is maybe 5 to 8% unintelligible. He shows that this number is not strictly the case, but gives the general impression that the King James Bible is to some degree, apparently, containing misunderstood, obsolete, dead and unintelligible words.

To bolster his propaganda, and to justify his “ministry”, he speaks about some dialogue he had with a certain King James Bible onlyist, though Ward misrepresents him as being a “Textus Receptus onlyist” for propaganda reasons.

(And, with his mildly entertaining manner, semi-professional videography and dorky attempt at nerdiness, his propaganda should be considered dangerous.)

The way Mark Ward presents it, naïve TROs are buying into his propaganda. The potential for this to be the case induces us to sound an alarm.

Mark Ward reported that he had a discussion with this King James Bible-supporting young person about their views on the eventual alleged need to edit, update or retranslate the KJB. Remember, Mark Ward already thinks the KJB is maybe 5% misunderstood, so with a purely naturalistic view of the world, one day apparently the KJB will need to be changed.

Mark Ward is taking on a kind of a role of being a “prophet” by estimating the change will be needed at some point, it would seem the thinking is maybe in 150 years, but who knows with these people, they’d probably be saying it should be a lot sooner.

The KJB will never be unintelligible, it is inconceivable that it would be, and there will not be any need for an update/change in so many hundreds of years.

According to Mark Ward’s account, he then says that his strawman “TRO” was volunteering to even change the KJB himself, if it was even allegedly so many percent “unintelligible”, though laughably knew no Hebrew or Greek, and would use Strongs Concordance (the lexicon part) to do the work.

It seems however that Mark Ward’s account of this conversation differs significantly to what the King James Bible supporter says he actually said.

As to some amateurish attempt to update the KJB, anyone who understands about this area will know that Strongs is completely subjective. If Strongs suggests a meaning for a Hebrew or Greek word, that meaning is as good (i.e. as poor as) a modern translation. Strongs’ work is often in conflict with the KJB, and since Strong himself was influenced by modernism, it is obvious that using his definitions would be inaccurate anyway.

Further, if English is allegedly changing, in this fictional hypothesis that the KJB’s wording is becoming harder to understand by the year, wouldn’t that mean that the English used in Strongs would be equally out of date?

Any supporter of the King James Bible who thinks that the KJB to be somewhat (5%) unintelligible, or will become so one day in so many decades, is wrong. This is because there simply are no “dead words”, “obsolete words” or any percentage of “unintelligible” words in the KJB.

I mean, we know that there are religious concepts that need to be taught, that there are hard and dark teachings in the Bible, but this is different to the concept that the actual language of the KJB is dying. The KJB’s words are NOT dying.

This is because the KJB’s English, which is Biblical English, is like a special religious language. This religious English is special as it is used to describe concepts, which are doctrines. Therefore, any doctrine, say “propitiation” or “sanctification”, is itself also relying on the fact that certain concepts are attached to certain English words. And the entirety of the KJB with its “ands” and punctuation marks (jots and tittles too) should be approached like this, as if it is a sacred language, a special language, because it is: it was designed by Providence to convey the very accurate truths of the Scripture to the whole world in the last days.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” (Hebrews 4:12a).

Preservation is not just in transmission of the Scripture from the past to the present, but is keeping it in the present.

You see, English is not a product of accidents, nor is its future mere random chaos.

Mark Ward used to say, “Usage determines meaning”. Such a view was the very opposite of a (Platonic) Christian presuppositional view that in fact God predetermined words, concepts, meanings. Instead, Mark Ward aligned to the opposite view, that (ultimately) the King James Bible is just a product of its times and the naturalistic tides of deistic history. God apparently was not guiding English, nor the passage of the Scripture to the world via English, nor raising up the succession of Reformers, Puritans, Evangelicals and today’s pygmies who stand on giants’ shoulders.

Mark Ward’s evolutionary view of language seems no different to the evolutionary/atheistic view of languages. But he has noticeably quietened on that front.

Instead, we believe that the English-using people, the success of English-speaking nations and the destiny of the English language with the gospel for the world is all designed by God. We are living in a providential continuum. (What a privilege it is to understand this and to cooperate with God’s Spirit, yet on the other hand, what a terror it is that the sword now dangles so precipitously over the likes of Mark Ward!)

Here are several reasons why the KJB is fully intelligible, and why it will be so into the future.

First, the Oxford English Dictionary people said, as long as someone knows a word, its meaning and use, it is not dead. “Our own words never become obsolete … Even after we cease to use a word, the memory of it survives, and the word itself survives as a possibility; it is only when no one is left to whom its use is still possible, that the word is wholly dead … They are alive to some speakers, and dead to others”.

Now, as long as the KJB is being used, and its words known, then no word in it can be called “archaic”, “obsolete”, “dead”, etc. As the fact is, the KJB is in widespread and current use, and exists all around the place.

Someone could point the OED itself and say that is lists this or that word in the KJB as “obsolete” etc., but such labelling is itself incorrect. The OED is not infallible, it is not comprehensive, it is not a religious text and it is not strictly speaking the dictionary of Biblical English.

So then, this “Biblical English” differs to, yet remains conversant with, English.

There are KJB words out there all over the internet, and used in plenty of churches, so therefore no word’s meaning in the KJB is being lost, nor have they been lost.

To charge the KJB as being the repository of a growing list of “dead” words (i.e. unintelligible words) is wrong.

Another reason why the KJB is not dying is because of the role of the Holy Ghost, and teachers in the church, and the whole heritage of prior learning (library/internet), which is that we may learn and be taught words, concepts, meaning and knowledge, so again, no word KJB word is obsolete, lost, dead and/or unintelligible, nor will they be.

Importantly, the KJB was made in line with modern English, and the very print history KJB reflects the stabilising of English, to our present day. English, due to its global position, proliferation and its connection with technology, is ensuring that English in the bigger sense is not varying, evolving or dialectising to the point of incompatibility with the KJB. Instead, the global rise and diverse sectors where English is being used are providential factors keeping English within the aegis of God’s divine English in the KJB. (As language serves God, then English is servant to the Word of God.)

So English is being kept in a stable place, meaning that the words of the KJB are still relevant and intelligible. God is in control, and it is ironic that a Reformed guy like Mark Ward does not have a view about God’s special care and sovereignty guiding English and the KJB, instead, his view seems to be linked to a naturalistic view of language “evolution” that atheists and infidels teach.

As for the hypothetical “TRO” that Mark Ward boasted about, they both would do well to read Edward Hills’ books and extend that logic in such a way as I have outlined. (As for the real person Mark Ward dialogued with, I suspect that Mark Ward misrepresented him for his own ends.)

“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zephaniah 3:9).

The word “besom” should not be replaced

In the King James Bible, we find the word “besom”. This is an example enemies of the KJB point to trying to make out the KJB is hard to understand and using old fashioned language. They say that word should be changed to “broom”. But is that right?

Getting rid of a specific word like “besom” is in fact an assault on the sacred language of the Scripture, it is an assault on the exact meaning of words and it is an assault on a good tradition that we have had for years.

Continue reading

Pure Cambridge Edition not debunked, despite the opinion of a tiny handful

Someone made a video attempting to debunk the Pure Cambridge Edition. They and commenters underneath the video on youtube made the following statements.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

All these claims are answerable, refutable and really they are wrong claims.

Here are the answers.

CLAIM ONE. All King James Bibles are “pure” so their KJB cannot be more pure than yours.

ANSWER ONE. The King James Bible as a version and a translation is pure, so obviously all editions of that version and translation are pure, because all editions have the same text and translation! The person here is mixing up the concept of editorial purity with textual and translational purity. Editorial purity is about having no typographical errors and having standard spellings, etc.

CLAIM TWO. “Geba” at Ezra 2:26 doesn’t seem to be necessarily more right than “Gaba”, because “Geba” appears only after 1900, because of Joshua 18:24, and because of the Hebrew.

ANSWER TWO. The person here is really objecting to the idea that one spelling is insisted upon, when places like this have had variations within the history of the KJB. Some editions have “Gaba” at Nehemiah 7:30, others have “Geba”. Also, in 1626 a London edition had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, and so did a 1750 London edition. Going to the Hebrew to look at these places is subjective (which Hebrew anyway?). And since editorial work includes regularisation, this is the likely reason why both Ezra and Nehemiah have “Geba”. See also

CLAIM THREE. The claim that the use of italic font at places it is used is itself inspired.

ANSWER THREE. I’ve never claimed that either the making of the KJB nor its editing was done by inspiration. And like the maker of the video, I agree that words in italics are inspired words, but I’ve never said that the italics were placed by inspiration. I do, of course, think that the italics as we now have them are rightly placed in that font style.

CLAIM FOUR. Italics at 1 John 2:23 in the PCE don’t match 1611.

ANSWER FOUR. The italics of 1611 have been edited over the years. But attacking 1 John 2:23’s italics would be to attack Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition and many others. The fact is that the italics have been improved after 1611, which exhibited various editorial issues and mistakes in places, so of course we should understand that many editions to this day match 1769 and the PCE at this place.

CLAIM FIVE. The word “and” (in italic font) “the Hivites” doesn’t hold up in Exodus 23:23.

ANSWER FIVE. The word “and” editorially belongs in Exodus 23:23, it was there in 1612, 1616 and the 1629, it was there in italics in Cambridge’s editions from the 1830s. Various other editions did not have the word “and” there, it is true, but using the Hebrew to prove anything about this is misguided. Instead, we should trust that the word “and” is an implied sense in the Hebrew, and that’s why it is there in English, in italics. The PCE is not wrong, nor are other historical editions, to have this.

CLAIM SIX. Cambridge University Press denies that they are authors of the “Pure Cambridge Edition”.

ANSWER SIX. It is true that CUP has not used the wording “PCE” nor did it actually create the electronic documents on the bibleprotector website, BUT there were printings of the Bible with the word “Cambridge” on them, in Pica Antiqua (quarto), Turquoise 8vo, (New) Brevier 8vo, (Pitt) Minion, Cameo 16mo, Sapphire 16mo, Ruby 24mo and Ruby Amethyst — printed from around the late 1920s to 1985 — and these printings all had “Geba” at Ezra 2:26, “and” (in italics) “the Hivites” at Exodus 23:23, “spirit” lower case at Acts 11:12; 11:28 and 1 John 5:8, etc. — and bearing the printer’s names of Walter Lewis and Brooke Crutchley. Do Cambridge University Press deny the existence of their own work? What were they changing in 1985 when they stated that they were changing 1 John 5:8 to “Spirit”? And while I said from the late 1920s, in fact, there are Cambridge Bibles from the World War One era that are almost PCEs, except for a few places, like having “spirit” when it should be “Spirit” at Mark 1:12. At some point under Walter Lewis those changes were made, leading to decades of an Edition that Cambridge should go back to printing today in all its offerings.

CLAIM SEVEN. The PCE is tainted by Matthew Verschuur’s Pentecostal biases. He improperly has lowercase “spirit” in Acts 11:12 and 28 despite these verses clearly talking about the Holy Ghost.

ANSWER SEVEN. The word “spirit” was lower case in Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28 in 1769, before 1769, after 1769, in Cambridge printings through much of the 20th century before I was ever born, so obviously my Pentecostal “biases” had nothing to with that. Furthermore, there are many verses in all editions of the KJB that have the word “spirit” relating to the work of God and it is obviously nothing to do with to do with Pentecostalism or biases. This is just how many historical editions of the KJB read.

The fact is that I don’t invoke any specific Pentecostal doctrine or necessitate some Pentecostal practice to be able to know and understand why the word “spirit” has been used in certain places throughout the KJB. And seeing as jots and tittles matter (jot and tittle are English words in the English dictionary that have English definitions) then it follows that the capital or lower case in God’s word is important, and that the PCE is presenting an editorial accurate form of the KJB.

Of course the Holy Ghost is directly involved when the word “spirit” is used in lower case in these examples, though it is about His effects and knowledge in the human heart. For a good overview read this short article:

IN CONCLUSION the PCE and its history have not been debunked, and the opinions of a small handful who are trying to say something is just mistaken. The PCE is a valid edition of the KJB, and the PCE is an accurate, acceptable and proper standard to represent the KJB now and into the future.

Why is lower case “s” on “spirit” right?

The question is asked, “Why is having a lower case ‘s’ on the word ‘spirit’ right at 1 John 5:8 (and Acts 11:12 and Acts 11:28)?

Here’s an answer I gave someone on a comment on a youtube video:

There’s a lot of info on my bibleprotector website about this, but there is a distinction between the person of the Holy Ghost and His outworking/function/effect particularly in human knowledge.

For example, in Joel it says God will pour out “my spirit” but in Acts 2 Peter says “of my Spirit”. Thus, “spirit” is of the “Spirit”.

Notice also 1 Cor. 2:12, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” And again, Prov. 1:23, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”

Simply, if you look at this use of “spirit” as received knowledge from the Holy Ghost, you would get how it is being used, like Exodus 31:3 “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”.

Importantly, the capital and lower case distinction is there before and in Dr Blayney’s 1769 Edition etc. With this understanding in mind, you can then see how it was and is rightly “spirit” lower case at: Acts 11:12; Acts 11:28 and 1 John 5:8.

The Oxfords in the late 19th century changed from Dr Blayney’s “spirit” to “Spirit” in some places, and when the Concord Cambridge was made in the 1950s, it too followed Oxford. Then from 1985 Cambridge changed normal editions at 1 John 5:8 and in the coming years beyond that silently changed the places at Acts as well. In fact, by the year 2000 some of its new Bibles available for sale still had “spirit” lower case at (at least one of) the Acts places.

Then, an article was written in the Trinitarian Bible Society’s April 2013 magazine, they said that they were going to review all of the places throughout the KJB that ALL editions still rightly had lower case “spirit”, such as at, Genesis 6:3, Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 35:31, Numbers 11:29, Numbers 24:2, 27:18, Nehemiah 9:20, 30, Job 26:13, 27:3, Psalm 51:11, 12, 104:30, 106:33, 139:7, Psalm 143:10, Proverbs 1:23, Isaiah 4:4, 11:2, 34:16, 40:7, 42:1, 44:3, 59:21, Ezekiel 36:27, 37:1, 27:14, 39:29, Joel 2:28, 29, Micah 2:7, 3:8, Zechariah 4:6, 7:12, John 4:23, 6:63, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 8, 12:18, Philippians 1:27, 3:3, 1 Peter 4:6, 14, 1 John 4:6 etc.

I don’t know what exactly played out, but I would hope they would come back to their roots and to the proper and distinct usage, as was present with Dr Blayney in 1769 and the 20th century Cambridge tradition (i.e. the Pure Cambridge Edition), with the standard use of “spirit” at the places I mentioned.

In short, there are plenty of examples where the word “spirit” is used, and spirit is directly connected with the Holy Ghost, it is His effect and impartation that comes into our soul/understanding. Of course other uses of the word “spirit” include the spiritual realm and of course human, angelic and evil spirits. When “Spirit” is used, obviously that means the Holy Ghost.

Finally, in Romans 8 it says in verse 6 to be “spiritually minded” yet the chapter is talking about the Holy Ghost, and so I want to make it clear that the word “spirit” at places like 1 John 5:8 is not a rejection of the Holy Ghost, but is completely based on Him. Particular knowledge is from God.

We have gone beyond 1769

With an array of issues in 1769, like “Beer-sheba, Sheba” in Joshua 19:2, or missing out on part of a verse in Revelation 18:22, we are grateful we have a better edition that gets everything right, known as the Pure Cambridge Edition.

We don’t use a 1769. No one does. Well, unless you’d use these ones. But you shouldn’t, you should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Here are two examples of a 1769 Folio: