INTRODUCTION

There’s a real problem in the King James Bible supporting camp of people who want to “correct” its editions to the point of making changes to some editorial choices that have occurred, to some italics, to some archaic words and maybe even some translations in places.

This approach is fraught with danger, because one change is dangerous enough. Any change should be dealt with the utmost of caution, in fact, it is something that should not happen at all. After all, who is qualified to make any changes, and will it receive widespread consent.

When Benjamin Blayney made his editorial changes throughout the Bible, he did not change the translation and he did not change the underlying text. His changes were vast but also conservative.

Having myself operated in the space of analysing the editing which created the Pure Cambridge Edition back in the early 20^th century, and having copy edited it into a stable electronic form, now used by printers and publishers internationally, I know how needful changes have been very conservative, and I have myself done one thing which no one has yet objected to, which is make the “s” at the end of “LORD’s” a lower case “s”. That’s the last “change” that has happened, and if that is to be accepted, then that’s it.

I do not want the door to be open to arbitrary changes. Some Cambridge Bibles these days have “Hammath” at 1 Chronicles 2:55. That’s something which would have to go away (even though that exists in many of their PCE printings as well).

But people have this itch. Maybe it’s because they believe there are “false friends” in the KJB, or hard words that need to be changed, or inconsistencies in the italics or some other changes. To admit one change like this opens the door for a thousand, and where do we go from there. It is much better for us to accept and stick with a standard edition as an ensign than to delude ourselves that there are all these minor faults that “we” can correct. That is pride, a spirit of personal exaltation and deception.

Now I know that there can be good Christian believers, ones who uphold the KJB, who may think of this, who may think to themselves that they could be the one to do this.

If I were of that old Jesuitical spirit, and I wished to question to the subtlest point, the grounds of something in the editions of the KJB would be the last “hail Mary” attempt to do this.

KENYON BOWERS AND HABAKKUK 3:19

Kenyon Bowers has written an article where he begins from the Hebrew as his authority, and his own mind as the judge, stating, “In my own study, I found a particular KJV reading that made no sense in light of the underlying Hebrew.”

What he is going to do is claim that the reading of “LORD God” in the 1611 Edition, 1769 Edition and PCE are wrong. He wants it to be “Lord GOD”.

First, he shows pictures of the Hebrew. The Hebrew shows of course that the KJB is right, if we are to do that method of looking at Hebrew, we can easily see “LORD God”, that is to say in Hebrew, JeHoVaH ADoNI, which of course obviously would be “LORD God” in that construction.

Kenyon Bowers then shows the motivation he has is essentially to impose his understanding of the alleged Hebrew and this leads him to reject the Pure Cambridge Edition specifically (in other words, he is going out of his way to attack the PCE not merely the 1769 which has fed into all present editions which have the same thing as the PCE.)

It is also clear that Kenyon Bowers considers “LORD God” to be “the KJV”, so he’s really attacking the KJB itself by his own admission. (In fact, he says he is not KJV-only even though at one time he was.)

We can see why “LORD God” is correct because it matches exactly to the Hebrew. We can see that in the LXX they had “Lord the God” which is inverted as “God the Lord”, we can see in Latin it has “Lord God”. Luther simply has “LORD”. In Coverdale’s Bible it read “The LORDE God”, but the Geneva and Bishops’ had “The Lord God”. Thus, in 1611 the KJV rightly had “The LORD God”.

In 1629 however, the editors decided to change it to “Lord GOD”. We don’t know who they were, but we know in 1638 some of the surviving translators were involved. Even Scrivener suggested that the 1629 editors were wrong.

Now there are places where the Bible has “Lord GOD”, but there’s obviously a reason why “LORD God” is right here. It certainly matches the historical evidence, besides the fact that the editorial aberration appeared from 1629 through to 1762 (Cambridge), 1769 (Oxford), and earlier editions. (The Paris of 1762 is not the same as the Parris of 1743.) Some editions, not following Blayney, persisted with the aberration, but obviously the PCE and various other editions from the 19^th century, 20^th century and this century are following Blayney.

It’s very sad that Kenyon Bowers has rejected the correctness of the KJV, and that instead of being able to accept that “LORD God” is correct, he has accepted the wrong notion of the alleged Hebrew and his own thinking rather than a correct understanding of the text, the acceptance of the correctness of the KJB and that there are good but occasionally incorrect things in the editing of 1629. If the 1629 was right, why was there a 1638 and a 1769?

CONCLUSION

We must humble ourselves to understand that God speaks and shows truth, not to try to impose our own will.

Human reasoning and being tossed about on the sea of no final authority is hardly a way to be, but as God has outworked to manifest things, then we ought to conform to that.

It would be rather silly if someone decided to bring out a new edition of the KJB, and make one change like at Habakkuk 3:19, and if one change, why not let the man who would love to be a consulting editor, Mark Ward, make some “gentle” changes. Where does it go from there? It is clear that if a little leaven is allowed, it will go the whole way through.

I am confident, however, despite the deceptions of the NKJV foreword and other attempts, that nothing will unsettle the KJB. In the words of John William Burgon, “It may be confidently assumed that no ‘Revision’ of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611, — the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another ‘Authorized Version.’”

That’s quite different to having a defined-style or critical Bible, where things are put as footnotes or whatever, to give the notes on important variations in editions and definitions for difficult words, and so forth, but whether such a project eventuate as a help and handmaid, I think we are safely served by what we have right now.

Even Burgon suggested it, but I am not very convinced, “we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we forbear to determine. But only as a handmaid is it to be desired. As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.”

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.

INTRODUCTION

While Bryan Ross claims to have assessed my remarks and teachings, he has had an agenda to specifically attack:

• The concept of jot and tittle exactness of the King James Bible view
• Pentecostalism
• Historicism

He essentially has not in practice followed, “This is what he believes and I will assess it on its own merit”, but said, “This is what I think he believes and why I think it is wrong.” He has not been neutral, but obviously is trying to present my beliefs in as bad a light as he can while claiming to quote me. Hence, his review is not just biased with his own bias but quite misleading in how he wrongly portrays what I believe.

It is also telling that Ross has spent weeks and hours of time talking about and against my position without actually properly assessing the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible itself.

In fact, he hasn’t addressed the most basic thing of readings of the edition, what changes happened from the 19^th to the 20^th century or any of that sort of thing, which is what he should have done.

UNFAIR OR DOUBLE STANDARDS

Ross seems to think that the PCE itself is indeed a King James Bible Edition, and that the files on my website are doubtless “good” in the scheme of things. But he can’t afford to admit that for PR purposes, he has to say that he has a “problem” with “authority” and content (e.g. my theology).

Ross has shifted his view as little as possible about the 12 tests, so that he can highlight how I have talked about the meaning of editorial differences, and also now revise his position to explicitly say that he acknowledges (at last) that Pentecostalism did not create the list of 12 tests (because the test verse references obviously came from Baptists/Fundamentalists).

Again, he revises his position that now I do highlight the “high-quality Cambridge tradition”. He still claims that Historicism is being used to make the PCE more than a preference position, when in fact adherence to the PCE doesn’t require Historicism at all.

Ross uses language like a lawyer, he says, “Some Cambridge lines come close to the later PCE profile.” In other words, he cannot admit that the PCE is an editing that took place in the early 20^th century, that it was represented by many print copies, and that I made a correct copy of it in electronic file form. He is perpetuating a deception that only my website files are the PCE and he refuses to recognise the approx. 100 years before 2007 of PCEs.

He says that they merely “come close”. He gives himself away because he speaks of things existing before 2007 that “come close” to the standard of 2007 when in fact it’s the opposite way round. He knows they are all the same Edition but accidentally admits he knows it by using the terminology “comes close” when they pre-exist the 2007 copy. In fact, they are all the same Edition, and those editions are followed by the Bible Protector file copy directly. It’s not even “comes close” now when looking retrospectively, it’s the same Edition.

Ross cannot accept that the same Edition being printed in different editions, styles, settings and print runs, which has the same editorial “readings” is really the same Edition. He cannot maintain his fiction because he speaks of “PCE-vs-PCE differences”, meaning he knows they are all the same Edition. But he wants to make a typo or some typographical (copy-editorial level) variation like a hyphen somewhere a major impediment.

How can a few tiny variations, which has been resolved, be an impediment when he knows that the 1611 Edition has a huge amount of orthographical variations to today? Ross invented his own doctrine to allow all kinds of variations to some sort of hazy standard (it is apparent that the original language Scriptures are his standard) and yet he is trying to attack me for copy-editorial standardisation or regularisation of a few absolute minutiae!

He even accuses me of bad sounding things like “presentism” because I resolved a few single type character variations like some hyphens in some printed copies. Isn’t that a good thing, isn’t that what copy-editing and publishers should do, and what any book readers want?

I AM BEING CHARITABLE

Ross says that he can accept the PCE as a preference, which I think is good of him to say. I think that is consistent with reality. I also understand that he would question lots of my beliefs, which as far as that goes, is usual debate. If that’s what is going on, which is a position that Ross does say he is of, then that’s what we will call acceptable debate. We can leave it there. Ross uses the KJB and has good things to say about things, so I know he is not totally wrong or bad. I just think he has misunderstood things and in some ways presented things wrongly or shifted his position without explicitly revealing it. There is some conciliatory tone in what he says, so I welcome that. His own views on topics are not entirely wrong, for example, there are some valid things he says concerning the KJB and its history, there are valid things in his Bible prophecy views, there are valid things he understands in how to assess things. If it wasn’t for all this, I honestly think we would be quite friendly if we were in on the same boat in real life.

ROSS’ FRUSTRATIONS

While it is true we are all growing, and that we can articulate things better in time, I think Ross is wrong in how he perceives and charges me with “retreating” from my “own published claims”.

Ross quotes my materials, but he does so to highlight things that de-contextualise them, or present things without explanation, that frames or mistakenly interprets things in a wrong light.

Ross has a number of times tried to make out that I believe different, opposing or varying things, but I have consistently answered those “attacks” on my logic/teaching.

A classic example is how the word “revelation” is used by him with a different meaning to it is used generally. The word “revelation” could mean Pentecostal dreams and visions, which is what a number of people have tried to claim about me. Of course, that’s a kind of framing because that’s not happened nor what I claim. I have used the word “revelation” meaning essentially “to understand a spiritual concept” which is the normal theological or everyday use of that word.

Now, while I understand we should be aware of how we use terminology, I’m not going to have word police or word mafia tactics used that basically try to stop the proper use of language.

Here are some examples:

Reformed teacher Sproul was very explicit that revelation = God making truth known, not mystical experiences. He wrote, “General revelation provides us with the knowledge that God exists.”

Anti-Pentecostal leader John MacArthur taught that the Spirit gives illumination, not new revelation. He taught that God showed people their sin and revealed their need for Christ. His view was the Spirit applying already-given revelation to the mind.

ROSS’ REFLECTIONS

He writes, “What I am reacting to is not mere disagreement, but a pattern where clear statements are later softened, requalified, or repositioned once their implications are exposed. Instead of saying, ‘Yes, that is my framework and here is why it still stands,’ he now speaks as though the PCE exists independently of the very theological reasoning he used to authorize it in the first place.”

This is in Ross’ mind, and not reflecting reality. He acts like he is exposing me and making me adjust my positions. This is simply not true. It actually is almost hubris for him to think that. I see him misinterpreting what I wrote, or misinterpreting that there is a conflict between various different things I have written.

In this case he gives an example, he speaks as if I am saying that the PCE exists independently of my theological reasoning, as though it didn’t before. The facts are this: the PCE existed for a century. Then I saw that the PCE was the best based on KJBO guidance and using proper studying methodology. Then I produced a typographically accurate form of the PCE as far as typography.

I don’t know if he is deliberately trying to imply it, but he seems to think that the glistering truths view of accepting the correctness of words (which are made of letters) is somehow some sort of self-promotion of an electronic text I made, or something similar. In other words, he keeps reading in motives or some sort of distorted presentation or figure of who I am and what I have done.

It’s like he wants to propagandise that Pentecostal church leaders have done something, when in fact that is his motivation for deliberate negative advertising. Objectively, the PCE exists as it has from the early 20^th century, and in many copies of KJBs around the place.

Ross’ distortion falls apart on the fact that at my church people have been and use:

• Vintage/fairly recent Collins Bibles
• Vintage Cambridge Bibles
• CBP Bibles
• Holman Bibles

All these KJVs are PCE, and many are not identical to the text on my website if you were to look closely at every last place, since there might be a typo in a Large Print Text from Cambridge or whatever.

ROSS TRIES TO DEFEND HIMSELF

Ross writes, “My position … distinguished [1] identification markers from [2] theological rationales, [1] preference from [2] exclusivity, and [1] historical description from [2] prophetic necessity.”

The above has not been executed by Ross consistently at all. In fact, his whole design of looking at the 12 tests (identification markers) has been to allow him to consistently attempt to tarnish them as biased with motives of Pentecostal theology. If that wasn’t the case, why does he consistently bring up the same Pentecostal “accusations” at almost every chance? He has been utilising obvious rhetoric for propaganda purposes.

I agree that his central thesis is preference versus exclusivity, which is really hiding Ross’ own departure from King James Bible Only thinking because his very use of the KJB is now built only as a preference. He is hiding his change of view by going on an attack of my views about believing that the King James Bible words are accurate (glistering truths).

Thirdly, Ross has avoided proper examination in a scholarly sense of the PCE, but rather sought to try to attack it from specious grounds like “Cambridge don’t know about how it was made” and “Verschuur edited to create something brand new in 2006”. Ross delights in repeating information from CUP because it helps him cast doubt on the historicity of the PCE, which is an anti-reality position. And he reframes concepts against his own belief system to make out that the PCE is something invented and manufactured by someone in 2006. This is again anti-reality, propaganda and totally designed.

Further, Ross falsely pits his own interpretation of reality in opposition to his rephrasing and editorialised adjustment of my Historicist views. In other words he is saying it is his science versus my Historicist story telling. This is as false a dichotomy as could be constructed.

Ross keeps on saying that he is “holding” me to what I “actually wrote”, but the fact is he is mis-using quotes, de-contextualising them, creating false dilemmas or false summaries and descriptions leading to false logic and motives in his analysis.

I accept that Ross quotes me, but he marshals the quotes in a rhetorical, propagandistic and frankly deceptive way that mischaracterises matters. I’m not saying that everything he says is wrong, but I am pointing out that he presents quite a different view in ways.

ROSS SUPPRESSES INFORMATION

I don’t deny that Ross has read an amount of my materials. I think he has misunderstood some things, but also missed vital components, for example, in not reading or explaining a range of views and teachings in other books on my website.

It seems to me that he has not looked at the following materials, some of which are highly relevant:

Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecies

The Great Restitution

Straining at Gnats

Throughly/Thoroughly essay

The Good Hand of the Lord Upon Us

The Prefatory Materials of the King James Bible

(And these being less relevant,)

Christendom Revanchism

The Repairer of the Breach

National Gospel

Mystery of the Gospel

A series of monographs

Rightwise

Christian Exceptionalism

Ross lays out his propaganda, stating, “I document internal tensions, redefinitions, and recalibrations precisely because I have read the material closely enough to compare it against itself. Someone who had not read his works would not be able to identify those continuities and shifts.”

Except, every one of these so-called “tensions”, “redefinitions” and “recalibrations” are made up by Ross or don’t exist as he understands them. They are only problems in his mind.

(I am not saying I have tightened or developed views on certain matters, but they are matters which Ross largely doesn’t cover. Some of parts of these topics he doesn’t go into I understand can go outside of the specific scope, such as, elements of Bible prophecy interpretation, italics in the PCE, Word of Faith doctrines, views derived from 17th century Millenarianism, Oliver Cromwell, Church and State matters, Infidelity, the PCE in the Millennium, Church Restitution, False Pentecostalism and Feelings Religion, English language providentialism, etc.)

Ross also ridiculously claims that I am rejecting what he says because apparently I want to “dismiss conclusions” he makes that I “not like”. This has been another of his wrong and perhaps hubris-based views. Further, even though I have pointed directly and multiple times showed him he is getting things wrong, he apparently wants to wave it all away by claiming that I basically haven’t shown him where.

To be clear, I am not accusing Ross of misquoting verbatim, a concept he should understand, I am accusing Ross of how he interprets and how he marshals quotes in a way to suit his own case and interest.

ROSS WANTS TO PLAY A GAME

Both sides of the debate are saying that the other is using a laundry list of “logical fallacies”. It’s an easy thing to do, he claims them for me, I think he does them. The game ends.

I am reminded of how Ross concentrated on what I said of the description of the linen angel in Daniel 10. I said this was a tertiary interpretation only. But Ross used it in a way to make out like I was just making up things, and emphasised his point.

In normal discussions and debates people bring up various information and data. It is an easy retort to question such things. It’s a political, rhetorical manoeuvre. It’s easy to imply that something has no legitimacy if it is not peer reviewed, not an established norm, not cited, not based on papers, studies and documentary evidence.

So, if I said, David Norton said X, Ross will question me. I have provided such information in the books Ross claims to have carefully read, but no, he says, like Rick Norris does, to effect, “You have failed to provide any so-called quote.” When I tell him it’s in my book, or I am presenting from private correspondence, Ross acts like if I didn’t conform to his demands I am suspect. Ross’ attitude in this is wrong.

Again, if CUP doesn’t have records published or information on something, Ross says, “that is assertion” or something, even though my entire two books he claims to have carefully read are full of empirical, scientific and obviously fact and reality based information with sound deductions, interpretations and conclusion (in regards to CUP and their publishing) showing things. But Ross wants to point to CUP who don’t know. In this, he is obviously rejecting what I have provided on the false basis that CUP’s lack of knowledge is more authoritative than all the study I have done. Ross’ attitude in this is wrong.

ROSS EXPLAINS HIS INVESTIGATION

Ross says, “I am asking whether the printed history, by itself, establishes the PCE as a single, consciously created, final Cambridge edition”.

This is a silly question because he already knows that Cambridge did not consciously create a final edition of any sort. Therefore, he is going to use the naturalistic position of Cambridge against the idea that there could be a final edition.

It is clear that while Ross has an ambivalent attitude towards the actual printed Cambridge Bibles, for example, the PCE, he has a specific theological motive to reject that there could be a perfect edition.

In that, he has engaged with my teachings to some degree, and he has done that probably so that he could reject the plain King James Bible Only approach without being explicit that he was doing so.

He has talked about Pentecostalism and other matters, which are his way of poisoning the well, when in fact his real issue, I suspect, is to reject King James Bible Only positions about having the Word of God perfectly.

In other words, he conveniently fought against my theology which he rejects while really wanting to quietly put down the idea that the King James Bible is exact and perfect in itself without need for change.

INTRODUCTION

Bryan Ross has put out his Lesson 283 video, which puts his concluding case against what he calls the PCE position. In it he conflates the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Bible (KJB) itself with the teachings of Matthew Verschuur (Bible Protector). There is an objective reality of the PCE, an Edition made by Cambridge in the early 20^th century, and printed in many editions throughout, including from Collins. This of course has led to people accepting that the PCE is a standard (by virtue of having an accurate electronic file copy) or at least is a normal Edition to use. On the other hand, from 2007, through the Bible Protector website, there have been teachings on King James Bible Only, Church Restitution, Bible prophecy and Pentecostal-related matters. While the PCE is related to the Word and Spirit movement on the website, obviously the PCE is openly being used by all kinds of people.

It is clear that Bryan Ross seeks to attack the gamut of teachings from Bible Protector because it conflicts with his own. While this blog has outlined a conflict over Pentecostalism and Historicism, the conflict seems also very sharply about King James Bible Only.

Essentially, Ross should be challenged on how much he actually believes that the King James Bible is perfect, precisely exact and right, because it seems that behind his public preference for the KJB and that he thinks it to be the best, he certainly does not view the King James Bible as the very stringent dimensions of written perfection.

REVELATION

The word “revelation” has two relevant meanings, but Ross has not understood this or deliberately tried to fog the distinction in which this word is used.

“Revelation” can be used by cessationists, Reformed people and others as a dirty word, meaning people claiming to be Pentecostals giving prophecies, words in tongues and having visions and dreams and so on.

I very strongly oppose the mistaken or deliberate accusation that is being made that it is by this sort of “revelation” that I came to understand or confirm the Pure Cambridge Edition.

The other use of “revelation” relevant here means to understand something spiritual. For example, when a person understands they need to be born again, this is a revelation. So to discover something spiritual by natural, academic or scholarly study is a revelation.

This second use ties to the usual cessationist and Reformed use of that word where they speak of Scripture being God’s revelation to man. In such a way, to understand the Scripture is itself “revelation”. Again, cessationist and Reformed people will say that it is possible to understand the acts of God in history and broad events (providence), and the existence and nature of God in looking at creation and maybe also even in what people do in their own life and their sense of calling (e.g. becoming a Presbyterian elder or something).

I think Bryan Ross is very remiss to wrongly connect that people understand about the King James Bible and the PCE as though this must be like Pentecostal experiences rather than an act of intellect received from God so to speak.

GLISTERING TRUTHS

Bryan Ross was probably one of these KJBO types that believed the 1611 was right and that this is what we have today with some typos fixed and spellings standardised. He then read David Norton’s book, and not only did he see that there had been proper editing in the KJB (something which he mocked me for when I said that it was morally right for Blayney to have done his work), but then I think seeds of doubt began in Ross’ heart about the specialness of the KJB, and he began to look at it more and more naturalistically.

So because Ross began to doubt the specialness of God’s words in the KJB specifically, he began down a path of just saying that the KJB was good and best and that the word of God can’t be tied to specificity of lettering. (Even though that is the very definition of what “Scripture” means.)

He constructed a view called “verbal equivalency” and began to allow parameters on what is or could be the Word of God without having a specific anchor. It has I think opened him to enter into a kind of middle realm between holding the King James Bible but sort of interface with the modernistic view of modern version/translation ideology.

Ross therefore was especially reactionary against my major concept, i.e. my monograph Glistering Truths, that began to show that the very words and letters of the KJB, specifically in the PCE, are necessary for the very finesse of conceptual accuracy. He has not liked the idea of such rigidly specific perfection of scripture setting connecting to conceptual perfection of ideas. He has broad brushed his idea of general equivalence (to what standard or authority?) in opposition to accuracy to the nuance.

While rightly reacting against the idea that God’s words have been perfectly in one standard copy to the jot and tittle of correctness passed down from 1611 to today, he has gone far into his own reactive view which seems to build upon the modernistic loyalty to the originals.

As such, he has balked and reacted against the idea that God’s words are perfect in Heaven and have, by promises and through providential mechanisms, manifested in an answer to the heavenly sanctuary on Earth. In fact, besides his anti-Pentecostalism and so on, it is probably this idea of having an exact standard, perfect, specific set of lettering of Scripture that has been most offensive to him, and been his primary motivator.

I challenge him as to why, in his heart, he does not wish to conform to an exact expression of God’s law but seeks rather the freedom to have acceptable (to him) variations to God’s message.

ROSS GIVES HIMSELF OVER TO HIS ERRORS

Ross says, “No single historical PCE exists. Early–mid 20th‑century Cambridge/Collins Bibles show family resemblance, not a documented, fixed, final edition. ‘PCE’ is a retrofit label invented by Verschuur himself in the early 2000s, not a contemporaneously attested artifact”.

Ross now blatantly tries to make out that many of the Cambridge and Collins editions through the twentieth century were not the same Edition.

He will say they are not the Pure Cambridge Edition because he might find one letter different, which is Ross being super hypocritical since he claims to be for “verbal equivalency” and against “verbatim identicality” yet he is saying that one print character difference is essentially a major factor.

Even more bizarrely, Ross argues that because people didn’t specifically document about the PCE or about the specificities of setting in recognising the conformity of Cambridge Bibles through the 20^th century, that somehow this invalidates reality and history.

Ross goes even further in his foolishness, trying to make out that “The modern ‘PCE’ is an editorial synthesis, not a historically settled edition. What is marketed or circulated today as ‘the PCE’ is a post‑hoc, harmonized profile assembled from multiple non‑identical ‘vintage’ printings. There is no single, contemporaneously published volume that functions as the authoritative standard; the modern PCE derives its uniformity from recent collation and normalization, not from a historically fixed print tradition.”

Such a statement is now utter hypocrisy from a person who is hung up about jots and tittles (a verse, Matthew 5:18, that he has sought to reinterpret to not mean jots and tittles but just the gist), and yet he is saying that the many different printings from Cambridge, even if they differ perhaps in a hyphen or two or something, that these are not the same Edition, even though manifestly they are.

I THINK ROSS REJECTS KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY

Ross attacks the concepts of King James Bible Onlyism by disconnecting exactness of wording from divine preservation. He specifically denies that God could get publishers to have an exactly correct printing of the Bible.

While he knows that King James Bible Onlyists use and uphold Cambridge printing, Ross is unwilling to recognise or allow that God would have worked through history with the Cambridge University Press to bring about accuracy of printing and editing.

Ross rightly sees historical preservation as continuity and sufficiency, but he refuses to recognise there could be any end or conclusion as far as having a world standard copy of Scripture. In other words, Ross is going towards the error of uniformitarianism, which says, what we have seen in the past must continue into the future.

In 2 Peter 3:4, 5 it warns that in fact there are interventions of God in history, there is an “end”. Therefore, it follows there is also an “end” of the “slackness” in which Scripture has been transmitted, and we come to sharpness and certainty.

Proverbs 22:20, 21:

20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Remember, God’s work is perfect (Deut. 32:4) and that God is not just allowing the looseness of naturalistic phenomena to act on His Word so it just drifts on and on with editorial or even version/translation variation without it actually being made known exactly to the world in precision.

Ross is therefore drifting towards compromise with the anti-KJBO and pro-modernist deistic position when he says, “Scripture and history align when preservation is understood as God’s faithful maintenance of His Word in the Church, not a quest for a last, flawless English edition. That framing grounds confidence without manufacturing edition‑finality.”

Already many KJBOs understood that we were more than just 1611 KJB users by accepting that the great work of 1769 has come to us. But as we have understood that each of the publishers have gone a little further from 1769, it is a matter of knowing what is right. The accurate and accepted Cambridge tradition has been established by KJBO leaders. The validity of the PCE to be central there is what is provided as a gift to all, so that God’s words can be known, as it says:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2).

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deut. 12:32).

THE BIG PICTURE

Bryan Ross and I have been having some remote back and forth.

I want to cut through Bryan Ross’ merry-go-round and directly address a major issue, specifically, that he has barely looked at the Pure Cambridge Edition itself, which was made by Cambridge in the early 20^th century, but instead talked about what I have said about the PCE.

So, he claims to be talking about the printed history of the Bible, but instead has got hung up going through my materials, not talking about the PCE itself. It seems that he doesn’t like my views because they differ to his, so he has tried to put them under a microscope.

In doing this, it seems like from the outset he has had an agenda, and little knowledge of what I actually believe. It also seems he has not understood directly what the PCE is.

SOME EXAMPLES

In looking at his notes for his lesson 282 there are problems which come through. He claims to be going through a kind of review of one of my books Vintage Bibles.

On page 2, he mentions how I talk about 1335 day-years from Daniel, but he doesn’t mention Islam.

Another example is where Ross then says, “the PCE’s authority within Verschuur’s system does not arise from the actual printed history”. This is wrong, because the PCE is itself an authoritative Edition as based on the print history and information directly about that.

He continues, “which showed no single, continuous Cambridge textual line”. This too is false. The whole of the foundational study on the PCE has been totally on the Cambridge textual line.

What Ross is trying to do is conflate the information on the PCE with separate other topics on Pentecostalism and Historicism. My approach is the printed history, and then to look at other matters, from a certain theological and Bible prophecy interpretation perspective.

Here are more examples of Ross not actually presenting what is in my book. On pages 3 and 4 Ross presents a different view on Revelation 10 in relation to the sixth trumpet, where his summary doesn’t bear any real resemblance to what I wrote on pages 166 and 167 of my book Vintage Bibles.

Likewise his explanation of the two witnesses contains information not in my book, and differs distinctly to my views while purporting to present them.

On page 9, it seems he is missing the entire context of the Word and Spirit movement, the Church Restitution and so on. He in fact makes out a Postmillennial interpretation which is not what I believe, he says with no explanation, “as the seventh trumpet ushers in the global acknowledgment of Christ’s reign”.

Ross then says that “the PCE position cannot cohere without Historicism”, but in fact the PCE exists objectively. What he is doing now is labelling the Word and Spirit position, with all its theology, as “the PCE position”, which is disingenuous. He doesn’t actually explain or properly understand the Word and Spirit view, and misrepresents aspects in his explanation, because he has the motive of miscasting things to make them look as bad as possible. (The fact that he also casts doubt in ways on the historical objective reality of the PCE is also telling.)

Ross wrongly conflates my positions about theology which I have articulated between 2007 to the present with the PCE itself and the beginning of adhering to it in the early 2000s. Around the years 2000 and 2001 I was basically a Dispensationalist who believed that things were generally getting worse before the Rapture.

This framing by Bryan Ross to make the PCE and my doctrine as identical doesn’t even make sense, seeing that the PCE existed 100 years before the books he has looked at (dated 2013, 2024 and 2025).

Why has Ross avoided other content on my website from 2006, 2014, etc.?

He has clearly just set up his own interpretation, the laboratory creation of a chimera, as a kind of Frankenstein bogeyman that he can set up. That’s why he has invented this idea of “pillars” of my theological view. It’s the creation of a monstrous wickerman woven from straw.

In fact, if he were to read my books, he would find constantly two “pillars”: Word (Puritan-Bible tradition) and Spirit (Holiness-Spirit tradition), and entwined as the Word and Spirit view. Things like creationism, providentialism, historicism and fundamentalism belong to the “Word” tradition.

Further he misunderstands the “heavenly prototype → PCE” is an overarching structure to the “historical process → PCE”, meaning both are concurrently true in one divine oeconomy. But Ross tries to make false dilemmas, like if one then not the other.

BIBLE PROPHECY

We can see that also in how Ross misunderstands the structured multiple fulfilments of Bible prophecy. For example, I believe in Historicism and Futurism, whereas Ross is Futurism against Historicism. He uses his model to view mine, which is not how to fairly present the other person’s view, though can be a valid way for assessing/critiquing.

This leads Ross to misunderstanding the difference between Idealism (Word and Spirit Idealism, also known as Symbolic Word, and based upon the oldest method extant, being the commentary of Victorinus of Pettau) and Historicism. As a proponent of multiple fulfilments of Bible prophecy, I do not, as some may wrongly accuse, think that a prophecy can mean just anything or what the interpreter wishes it to mean.

Ross wrongly calls my using the Idealist method in one place as “incompatible” with the use of Historicism in another.

(In fact, mistakes can happen if one makes an eclectic view and mixes together two modes. Also we are always learning, which is a good thing.)

However, in this case Ross has wrongly understood the situation, there are four ways in which to interpret Revelation 10. They are the late Preterist, the successive repetitions Historicist, the historic premillennialist pre-tribulation rapture Futurism and the Word and Spirit Idealism.

So Ross is wrong to accuse of “a theologically significant contradiction”. Has he not heard of sensus plenior, of dual fulfilment and of multiple fulfilments? These are all positions well known in theological circles, and are found in a vast range of works, e.g. Raymond E. Brown, Desmond Ford, Henry Kett, Halley’s Bible Handbook, Arthur Pink, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory the Great, Gleason Archer, John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, G. K. Beale, etc.

Ross goes on to try to define Historicism, but is very vague, in that there are several different frameworks on how the book of Revelation is viewed to be structured. Ross tries to compare my view as “idiosyncratic”, when my view is consistent with Historicism. As to be expected, I have refined it in light of history. But Ross is starting from probably not even understanding the Wikipedia article (with its Seventh Day Adventist biased explanation on the subject), so his assessment is of very little value.

Ross wrongly goes to sources which belittle Historicism, and charges it with one of the major theological crimes of Futurism, namely the self-referential tendency to read things to one’s own day.

Ross seems to imply, quite wrongly, that I am making up the “1967” year date for personal preference reasons, when this date is consistent with the prevailing view of the current evangelical adherents of Historicism.

Ross goes so far to try to make out that my Historicism is “bespoke”, when it is obvious his frame of reference must be the teachings of Seventh Day Adventism. If he used Steve Gregg’s “Four Views” book, he must understand that this book is fairly scant as it is only providing an overview. And if he looked anywhere, he might find Oral Collins’ book. Collins is a modernist who follows the work of E. P. Cachemaille, whereas Gregg’s book looks more at Robert Caringola’s work which follows more A. J. Ferris (and somewhat H. Grattan Guinness) but ultimately E. B. Elliott. I am very familiar with this field of study, whether the recent writings of Joe Haynes or the writings of Joseph Mede. My view is built on the shoulders of giants.

As the KJB translators understood, latter thoughts are greater than the former. Again, as Lord Verulam (Francis Bacon) rightly knew, speaking as a spiritual husbandman, that knowledge is increasing, and we can observe a springing of fulfilments from germinant prophecies.

ANSWERING ROSS’ RANTINGS

I don’t know how many times I’ve shown Ross is wrong in how he manufactures an interpretation.

Like previous times he says that I am one who “adjudicates half of his hallmark PCE ‘tests’ by Pentecostal pneumatology (e.g., ‘Spirit/spirit’ in Matt 4:1; Mark 1:12; Acts 11:12, 28; 1 John 5:8), showing that doctrinal categories—not neutral editorial history—decide the ‘pure’ reading”.

As I have said many times, the tests came before I treated them in doctrinal depth. The tests were not in themselves some places so theologically significant in the differences between KJB readings, but are clearly with some significance. The tests were for identifying an Edition, not for specific study as such. It was therefore several years later, after having a diagnostic framework (a series of test passages to test whether any Bible of any sort is a PCE) that I decided to analyse them theologically, logically, hermeneutically, etc.

Ross is therefore wrong to imply that Pentecostalism led to choosing instances regarding the word(s) “Spirit/spirit” in the tests, when in fact these were things being mentioned by Baptists in their lists of edition differences.

I know Ross wants to doubt my word for it, but indeed there was an amount of material online in the KJBO corners of the internet in 2000/2001.

Ross also wrongly says, “he links the timing and authorization of the PCE to Pentecostal revival”. I did mention twice over the years that it was interesting or even providential that the PCE came about when Pentecostalism was rising. But Ross has blown this out of all proportion.

Ross then says, “That is why his recent denials—‘providentialist not Pentecostalist’—are out of alignment with both his earlier and more recent testimony, where he seeks to deny the impact of Pentecostalism on his framework.”

What Ross is doing now is going “all in” on his false narrative, when I have repeatedly said that:

1. The PCE came from Cambridge which was not Pentecostal
2. The PCE came about many decades before I was born
3. My own identification of the PCE came through textual study, the normal scientific, scholarly method
4. The tests to identify the PCE were not Pentecostal-centric, but were mostly drawn from or in line with Baptist sources
5. The knowledge that the PCE was right was from a KJBO not Pentecostal perspective
6. My comments about Pentecostalism existing or Pentecostal theology in thinking about hermeneutical and editorial-textual-critical method of looking at the rightness of edition readings came later

Ross should ask his friends to instruct him on:

1. Straw Man Fallacy

2. Hasty Generalization

3. Mind Reading / Motive Fallacy

4. Cherry Picking

5. Overinterpretation / Overreading

Ross repeats his now blatant error, saying, “Verschuur’s own framework makes Faith-Pentecostalism a pillar of the position and even uses Pentecostal pneumatology to decide hallmark PCE ‘tests’ (e.g., the capitalization of Spirit/spirit in Matt 4:1; Mark 1:12; Acts 11:12, 28; 1 Jn 5:8), so the edition’s ‘purity’ rests on Pentecostal presuppositions rather than neutral textual criteria.”

Ross should stop bearing false witness.

If pneumatology was a factor, it was a factor common to Baptists who were mentioning the capitalisation of the word(s) “Spirit/spirit”. That discussing was not happening with Pentecostals at all, but Fundamentalist KJBOs.

The purity of the PCE rests on arguments drawn directly from non-Pentecostal KJBOs, TROs and even the modernist desire for consistency.

The desire for editorial purity in KJB editions is a concept going back centuries, for example, see this: https://www.bibleprotector.com/blog/?p=1163

COUNTERING ROSS’ REPEATED ERROR

In Appendix A of his lesson 282 notes, he tries to counter me yet again.

He says, “In reality, I explicitly acknowledged that the twelve items function as identification markers, not doctrinal propositions.”

Well, I have quotes just back where twice the very opposite false witness was given, and now this directly contradicts those lies. Is this a true statement?

But then, Ross writes, “it is beyond dispute that your rationale for half of the twelve PCE diagnostics are grounded in explicitly Pentecostal categories.”

All those theological reasonings I give are later than the making of the tests.

Also, logically, a person who begins studying something, as I did regarding editions in 2000, is starting from very low knowledge, a young internet and relative youth in age. I can expressly say that I was not thinking there is something more vitally Pentecostal about Matthew 4:1 or Mark 1:12 as such, for example.

It is also easy to see, What would a Baptist think? I am sure about 100% of born again Baptists who know anything will understand that the Holy Ghost led Jesus into the wilderness.

How is there anything more exclusively Pentecostal about this Bible story? Were the editors making changes at Cambridge (and maybe Oxford) in regards to Matthew and Mark there Pentecostal?

ROSS GOES FULL RICK NORRIS

Laughably, Ross will not acknowledge that a set of editions from Cambridge represented an Edition, which is now called the Pure Cambridge Edition. He will say that those editions “come close” to the electronic text I published on my website in 2007 (made in 2006). But if my text is harmonising previous editions which are sometimes only varying in one letter in one place, besides the “LORD’s” formatting, then how can it be implied that there is not one Edition which was made in the early 1900s?

Ross, like Norris, wants to make a pedantic point about all the different editions when in fact they clearly conform together, from a common origin, meaning that there is indeed one Edition.

ROSS WRONG ON BIBLE PROPHECY INTERPRETATION

Ross mentions the “Historicist scaffold” and then my mentioning of the angel’s clothes “linen → India paper” which he calls “leaps”. First, this is not a Historicist interpretation. Second, I made it clear it was a tertiary view. And third, the fact remains that India paper was made from flax. Ross’ questioning doesn’t therefore deal with the information as I have presented it. This goes to his willingness to try to make as bad a case as he can, rather than actually do an analysis. As a reviewer he may question things, but now his review is shoddy because it doesn’t even represent my view.

ROSS DOES THE USUAL SCHOLARLY TRICK

Instead of taking the wider view where I have mentioned what Professor Norton said, Ross does the trick of saying that there is “no quotation, no citation, no date, and no context for what Norton supposedly ‘mentioned,’ making the claim entirely hearsay.”

This is what Ross wants to do: he wants to invoke the academic snobbery that I must properly bibliography something in order for it to be admitted as evidence. But because I didn’t, apparently then it can be doubted what I said.

I can only imagine Ross demanding me to produce photo ID to prove whether there really be a Professor Norton at all.

Apparently Ross wants to refuse reading Norton’s book (the very book that converted him towards his new doctrine of “verbal equivalency” as though God speaks as a hydra from many mouths) which in places gives information on the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Also, I know Ross wants to refuse my testimony on correspondence from Professor Norton on the pretended grounds of empiricism, which says, “unless I see the imprint on a sheet, I will not believe”.

He says, “I noted that Norton’s published work does not define or recognize any Cambridge ‘Pure Cambridge Edition’ category (if they did Verschuur would cite them).”

How deceptive. Ross knows that Norton did not use the term “Pure Cambridge Edition” to describe it. That’s like saying that Erasmus did not produce the Textus Receptus because that term came into use a hundred years later.

And as for “citations”, the quotes and info is there in my Guide, Century and Vintage Bibles.

Again, Ross produces his exacting definitions for “copy-editing” but refuses to acknowledge that many editions can represent an Edition. The differences in editions of the Edition are but of that copy-editorial level. Even the formatting of “LORD’s” fits within that.

Again, I explain how the various tests, criticism and differences between various Editions was discussed and listed by Baptists and Fundamentalists in the past. Is this not an objective, investigable fact by engaging the wondrous contraption of analogue use of keyboard typing into a search engine or use of deep thinking AI?

Ross wants to close his eyes, saying my commentary “provides no verifiable evidence—no names, no dates, no sources, and no bibliographic documentation. He merely asserts that ‘Baptists’ made comparison tables, yet none of those alleged materials have ever been produced or shown to contain the exact twelve readings he later canonized as a diagnostic set.”

How Rick Norris of him to throw the words “asserts”, “alleged” and “he later canonized” about.

He says, “no Baptist writer prior to Verschuur ever treated these readings as a unified list, as distinctive, or as edition-defining.”

I assume he means “these sorts of editorial readings”. And Ross would be wrong.

Perhaps Ross can see this mediating historical evidence: https://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55

Ross says, “no one before him claimed anything unique or special about this particular set of twelve readings”. This is a pointless statement, as he is conflating the concept of editorial differences with the concept of a diagnostic list. It is not that those 12 readings are “more special” in the sense that he indicates it.

He then says, “no historical or theological tradition recognized them as constituting a distinct Cambridge ‘Pure Cambridge Edition.’ His claim therefore contributes nothing toward establishing documentary or historical grounding for the PCE as he defines it”.

Again, Ross is totally wrong. KJBOs were supporting Cambridge printings.

Also, it seems that Ross seems to deny the reality that there is an Edition now called the PCE.

All those Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc., who used Cameos (Reference and Large Print Text) and Turquoises for decades were indeed using the PCE.

Where did the tradition as held by Gail Riplinger, Laurence Vance and others who use these very editions come from?

Ross has the temerity to deny that Waite, Ruckman and other KJBO and TRO leaders all used Cambridge Bibles.

I corresponded with these people and read their works. How can we deny that Cambridge is not the best? It fits that view that there are KJBOs who use the PCE distinctly.

Why are vintage Cambridge Lectern Bibles being collected by people like facebook user “Scriptorium Bibles”, except that these are considered the best?

It seems like Ross is more a contrarian.

ROSS IS NOT USING LOGIC

In response to my saying that I was not a Historicist when first looking at the editions issue from 2000, Ross says, “his admission suggests that Historicism functions as an after-the-fact justification layered onto a prior commitment to the PCE”.

How telling he should speak of my prior commitment to the PCE, which was on scientific grounds (proper scholarship).

ROSS APPEALS TO IGNORANT SOURCES

Ross really loves the letter from CUP from 2010, because they didn’t know much about the issue.

It is clear that CUP is now an economic-based proposition, which means they would have to weigh up the financial impact it would have on them in what editing they do in the KJB.

Ross appeals to their ignorance as though that is the overarching word of authority. He says, “CUP itself provides no endorsement of a singular, consciously created Cambridge ‘PCE’ setting.”

Ross wants to deny that there is a singular Edition, which is why he uses the word “singular”.

He wants to deny the existence of the PCE which is why he uses the word “conscious”. He does this because he wants to exalt CUP’s lack of awareness in the present as well as their being unaware of the details around the historical editing event in the past which made the PCE.

Of course, how did the myriad of editions and printings in conformity come about through the 20^th century? But no, Ross wants to make sure that we think they are not the same. (This is where he is ironically even rejecting his own “verbal equivalency” views.)

Finally Ross wrongly frames the PCE as a “setting” on the premise that one must seek a first copy rather than acknowledge all the evidence of many copies which reflect the origin of the editorial work.

WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?

Is Ross trying to say that I use Pentecostal/Word of Faith doctrine, Historicism and KJBO views to talk about the PCE without talking about the focus on its editorial history?

Is he trying to say that there is no Edition throughout the 20th century which is called now the Pure Cambridge Edition, and use that name as a label only for an electronic text made in 2006?

I wonder how much he actually thinks the KJB’s readings and its translation is perfect and exact, because it seems like that’s an issue for him.

I also wonder why Ross never really presents an aggregation of materials from my website, which would be relevant, including my document on Rick Norris and other booklets, etc., see my main index page and this list: https://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9

And anyone who wishes to understand Mark 10:30 should read this booklet. “But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.”

POSTSCRIPT: I suddenly see Ross and Norris together on Facebook, and I ask myself, is this a coincidence?