Thomas Ross (of faithsaves.net) is an American cessationist Baptist. However, despite his theological differences to Christian Perfection and Traditional Pentecostalism, he has made some excellent points in defence of the King James Bible. After he made quite a good statement regarding the Scriptural basis of the preservation of the Scripture into English, he then erred into the “original languages only” (Textus Receptus only) doctrine of D. A. Waite, and jeopardised his entire argument. Not unrelatedly, he also elsewhere stated, rather strangely, that “Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation validate that ‘and he went’ is the correct reading in Ruth 3:15.”

TR: I confess that I do not believe that modern Baptist churches should use any other English translation than the Authorized Version, nor do I see any necessity for revising the KJV at any time during my lifetime.

This is the first sign of a problem. Being open to future changes to the King James Bible is to recognise that the King James Bible’s text and translation may not be perfect after all. Changing the KJB is fraught with danger, because even little changes like “alway” to “always” are meaning changes.

It is very important that the conceptual integrity of the KJB be retained, and therefore no changes should be made. English is, in its written form, become fixed. Written English is not changing so as to make the words or parsing and syntax of the KJB unintelligible.

TR: However, I also confess that the promises of preservation are specifically made for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, not English words (Matthew 5:18), and that there are no specific promises that state that Scripture would be translated without error.

After having argued that Scripture is in English, and that the nature of inspiration is retained through translation and even given verses that show that preservation is implied to come into English, he now states the opposite, as if the real truth is only in the original languages, and that Matthew 5:18 does not include English, and that it is impossible to have a perfect translation.

First, it is a sign of modernist influence when a person says “Aramaic”. They are obviously meaning Syriack, and what became known as Chaldee.

The assertion that only the Scripture is to be preserved in the original languages is never stated in Scripture.

Only one verse is referred to, and that verse, Matthew 5:18, is not a specific positive reference to Hebrew only (and what about Greek?) Jots and tittles are to be found in English. If it is to be argued that only the Scriptures were in Hebrew (the Old Testament) when Jesus spoke this, then it both misses the Gospel implications of promises of the New Testament (e.g. Jesus saying He is coming soon) and, more importantly, is missing the fact that the entire Bible is in Heaven.

The question then is what language or how is the Bible recorded in Heaven? That is, in Matthew 5:18, Jesus is saying he is to fulfil every jot and tittle of the law. That means every promise. Promises are written. The Bible is a legal document. In law, the very words matter. So then, the very truth is recorded in the Heavenly Volume (Codex).

But Jesus would not be ultimately referring to “Scripture” as being in Heaven without it being on Earth. After all Moses made it clear that the commandment was not far and remote, but at hand. Therefore, the implication is that for believers to know the law, and to ingest it inwardly, it must be available. So then, when Jesus is referring to something which by implication must be the ultimate perfect Scripture, should we then disregard that we have a representation of this for the world in the latter/end times in English, made common?

The words “jot and tittle” are English words, words found in the English turn of phrase and in the dictionaries. We can therefore join together the idea that there is a perfect Scripture with the idea that the Scripture exists perfectly in English here and now as a standard.

So then to limit the truth to Hebrew copies is too shallow, when the whole Scripture is perfect in Heaven, and that there is also something which answers that which is above in Heaven by having a perfect Bible for all in English, to the ends of the earth and for the end of the world.

If there is no perfect translation, then how can the King James Bible be upheld by Thomas Ross. He must just think it is good, maybe an excellent translation, but still, he must admit either to error in English or to less light in English, and it is in this thought where there is a great danger. For, why would God bring the Scripture to English and yet have it missing something? Or, why would He bring it to English in sufficiency, but have something better in the disagreeing and various copies in Hebrew?

Again, why would God do so much as to use imperfections of the Hebrew copyists and all this, only to deny that perfection cannot come via translation? So, one human endeavour of creating a Hebrew Masoretic standard is able to achieve perfection, but bringing the same into English just cannot reach it? No, either God is of power to bring it to English for all, or why even bother giving it by inspiration to begin with.

TR: Since no verses of the Bible promise a perfect English translation, I respect the views of brethren who, while receiving the promises of God concerning the preservation of His perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, believe that there are places where the English of the King James Version would be better rendered otherwise.

This is even more dangerous backpeddling, and all to do with his peeve about the word “baptism”. There’s a denomination that uses the word “Baptist” to mean “full immersion”. As a full immersionist myself, why doesn’t Thomas Ross recognise that this is what the Bible is teaching, that he wants to change the King James Bible word from “baptize” to “immerse”? This illustrates that wanting to change the KJB is always fraught with maximal danger. This desire to criticise and tamper with KJB words is highly dangerous, because who knows what of even small changes would result. To change now is to corrupt!

TR: Furthermore, I recognize that there can be more than one accurate way to translate a verse from the original language into the vernacular.

This is another slippery slide backwards. Let us admit that the pre-1611 Protestant English translations were generally accurate and differ to the KJB here and there. But we are for perfection, for exactness, not just mere sufficiency. This desire to allow variations to what has properly been accepted in English as the standard is to tear down the ensign, withdraw and surrender the high position.

TR: Nevertheless, because the people of God who do not know the original languages should have (a justified) confidence that when they hold the King James Bible in their hands, they have God’s very Word in their own language, and because I respect the high confidence that the Head of the church has led His congregations to place in the English of the Authorized Version, and because I have found in my own language study that, time and again, there are excellent reasons for the translation choices in the Authorized Version, I refrain from criticizing the English of the King James Bible, and when it is appropriate in preaching and teaching to mention a different way the text can be translated, I choose to say, “this word (or verse, etc.) could also be translated as” rather than “this word (or verse, etc.) would be better translated as.”

To say that something could be translated another way is to already give ground that the Word of God is not so fully, pleasingly or properly in English, and tears at the very fabric of our Scripture in English. If the KJB is not right, or could have words replaced, then where is the standard? Is the opinion of Thomas Ross now the standard of what could be the Scripture instead of the KJB’s proper and perfect wording in certain places?

And now to an adjoining point.

TR: Scripture’s promises of perfect preservation validate that ‘and he went’ is the correct reading in Ruth 3:15.

The KJB has had, since the second edition of 1611, “she” in all the main and important editions, at Ruth 3:15. All normal Bibles today have “she”. Yet, that subtle spirit of wanting to turn the truth to error is at work, even (sadly) through a brother who otherwise has some great points in favour of our King James Bible, in that he wants to alter the Bible to an error, even by changing a hairsbreadth. Such changes are highly questionable.

I’ve produced a copy of the Pure Cambridge Edition that specifically made that the “S” at the end of “LORD’S” not a small capital but lower case “s”. Not one person to this day has objected about it, and yet, it is probable that Cambridge was printing copies last century with a small capital “S”. However, it looks like they changed to a lower case “s” themselves with the printing of Norton’s Edition. I am making it very clear that this “s” is in line with the editorial history of the KJB, and is not to be taken as a light thing. This is the Word of God, so we must treat it with the highest of respect. (The small “s” is used because the “s” is a contraction for “his”, and the apostrophe was not use in 1611.) [Note that this formatting does not show the small capitals as actual small capitals.]

Editorial clarity (what I have done) is one thing, but what Thomas Ross proposes or will allow is a quite another thing. The “he” in the first edition was a typographical error in 1611, it should have been “she” at Ruth 3:15 all along. It was editorially responsible for editors to have “she”. But once we move away from God’s providence manifested in English, we are on the grounds of other languages, a misguided emphasis on the lack of printing-house quality of 1611 and Thomas Ross’ opinion that he wants to change away from the pure wording.

It is far better to stand for the King James Bible and accept it as God’s provision than to seek to provide loopholes for making alterations to it.

Nick Sayers and Bryan Ross had an interview in May 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvt4fajpYSw

They discussed numerous topics with the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus. The entire interview is informative, but brings up some issues. Much of the discussion revolved around the editions of the King James Bible.

One of the main themes that comes through is that the King James Bible Only movement has a lot of over-simple and sometimes misguided views.

Bryan Ross tries to make out as if King James Bible Only, he actually says “everybody”, has been saying that the King James Bible has not had changes, that the only differences between 1611 and today are printer errors and spelling changes, and that there are four main editions.

Sadly, Ross is misstating the case there, for rhetoric purposes. The reality is that from D. A. Waite until now, the more prolific KJBO writers have indeed recognised there are changes (not in underlying text or translation) in the King James Bible. For example, from 2007, I have been publicly talking about more than “four editions”, and I have made it very clear for years that there was standardisation of the language and editorial regularisation.

Having said that, the facts that Ross mentions about various editions are not incorrect, but in a few examples (such as use of apostrophes) I think his interpretation is not correct.

Sayers also talks about “accompted” being a separate word to “accounted”. While there are two different words, there is also the reality that “accompted” is just the old spelling of “accounted”, which is the case in the Bible. I don’t doubt that there can be a different word, but even the dictionaries also mention that “accompted” can just be an old spelling. (By the way, a word like “comptroller” which today could be its own word, or potentially an old spelling for “controller”, I suspect is a kind of example of the same thing.)

Another issue is that some people have taken a hyper-puritanical approach to spelling and word differences in the King James Bible. On one side, “example” and “ensample” are clearly two different words, which of course we should strive for having exactness. But on the other, “musick” being changed to “music” is not the end of civilisation, though it should be “musick”.

While the Bible in English has changed from Tyndale to the KJB, and the KJB has certain kinds of changes (e.g. spelling) from 1611 to now, we still recognise the Word of God. What is problematic is that if there is no standard, and no exactness, then things are not so clear, and this can impact doctrine.

I wrote a book called “Glistering Truths” (see 2024 edition) which explains why exactness in English is good, and also having a standard edition of the KJB is good.

Bryan Ross has tried to argue that because there are spelling and word differences in American KJBs that there cannot be a standard, or somehow is unwilling to nail concepts down to an exactness, doesn’t make sense. The point is not to belittle American KJVs that don’t conform to standard and proper lettering. They have been used as the Word of God, despite these things. God has sufficiency of grace. But He also has been working towards finality and common knowledge of a standard, which is important, because the law of God and precise thinking require the precision of language down to the punctuation. That’s an advantage of God working through history, it’s not a rejection of old or American KJV copies, rather, this is the crown to them, for what they laboured in so well, we now have the par excellence.

I think that there is no dictionary that is a standard to the English language, though I think the OED is an excellent record of usage. Only the KJB can be the ultimate authority to itself. Dictionaries can be helpful, but you have to always say that the KJB is greater than the dictionary. I don’t think that the King James Bible Only people thought it through properly when they rejected all dictionaries, and there has been a misguided adherence to the 1828 Webster Dictionary. On the other hand, Ross seems to go too far implying that dictionaries are much more of a usable tool than what they should be.

Bryan Ross rightly pointed out that Mark Ward had a point about the potential for people to misunderstand some KJB word, but Nick Sayers was also right to question Ward’s additional motives. I expect that in time, more different “helps” will come available to continue to assist people in understanding the KJB language.

Christopher Yetzer by way of messaging stated that we don’t use a 1769, which is one of my long standing points. People keep saying they use a 1769 when hardly any one does. The editions in use today are a little different to the 1769. Rick Norris has had a field day blowing up KJBO people for it.

Nick Sayers does not have a very good view of Blayney’s italics, as we have them today. This is a product of Sayers’ looking at the original languages and TR editions, when italics are for a variety of reasons, including translation and textual variances. The italics should be kept the way they are because they are essentially universal in editions and they are an accepted tradition, and I suspect that Sayers has not fully entered into the mind of Blayney on how they were executed editorially.

Bryan Ross also makes an unclear statement about italics, trying to claim that these words were not inspired. What he seems to be confusing is the original inspiration with what is needed for accuracy in English today. Therefore, the italics must be conveying the inspired Scripture, and therefore the italic words are part of the Scripture, so they should not be belittled. Now, of course, the KJB translators or Blayney in 1769 was not inspired, and they were not “adding” words to the Scripture.

It is also problematic that Ross seems almost drawn to listen to “critics”, or to give them an undue hearing, whether David Norton, Mark Ward or facebook critics.

I want to make it very clear, regarding the last question in their interview, that if you have a King James Bible you have the Word of God. I promote the Pure Cambridge Edition because I think we need an editorial standard, because we need knowledge of accuracy to the very letter of Scripture and because it’s a widespread edition from a reputable source (Cambridge) which built on a good editorial foundation before it (the 1769 Edition). While there is a danger that someone could thrust in the fire a Bible because it has “Zarah” instead of the correct “Zerah” at Genesis 46:12, I think such an attitude would be too out of line, though I would hope that in time there is more and more alignment to the pure standard. Surely it’s not a problem if people marked with a pencil an “e” instead of an “a’. People don’t go to hell merely for using “Zarah” or Oxford KJBs.

I think Bryan Ross is unconsciously conflating the legitimacy of having the Pure Cambridge Edition with some sort of mystical adherence to the very words and letters of Scripture. I think his attitude is in the same category as an American revolutionary one: he sees the dangers of extremism in power but also bucks against legitimacy because it would mean submission.

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

(1 Cor. 1:27, 28).

The interview is very good, and there are lots of merits to things discussed. I personally can see the danger of someone mistaking what I say in my book “Glistering Truths” and taking things way too far. In every place where people are using the Pure Cambridge Edition as a representative standard for today for comparing to 1611, yes, that’s good. But really we are most concerned about the Word of God itself, God’s message. Because God’s word is “law” and “sure”, I think it is only good if people know what “ensample” or “throughly” mean in comparison to “example” and “thoroughly”. These words should not be treated as interchangeable now, and in fact, we shouldn’t be open to or allowing any changes to our King James Bible now.

King James Bible anti-perfectionist, Mark Ward, has put a lot of effort into trying to argue that it is getting to difficult too understand the King James Bible.

He is trying to create a profile for himself with some books and materials which try to identify words that might be wrongly understood in the KJB.

What Ward did not do is approach the area like he wanted to actually help people. Instead, he approached the area like as if he was being funded by certain sources, with the intent of extending markets of sales. That is, the attempt to break people from solely relying on the KJB and an attempt to sell more people more Bible study “resources” in line with that view.

Further, Ward has been approaching his work not in a “ministry” sense (i.e. to serve the other without being a burden) but in a marketing sense, creating lines of revenue to sustain himself.

I believe in prosperity doctrine, so I am all for ministries giving and receiving. Maybe Mark Ward could learn a thing from Kenneth Copeland and put out his own Reference Study Bible, King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition. (After all, Copeland himself put out the PCE several times, so his really was a ministry of excellence!)

In Mark Ward’s crusade against certain words in the KJB, he surprisingly didn’t highlight some very significant resources, like W. Aldis Wright’s Bible word-book.

If he’d used that book, and its preceding incarnation, he would have seen what mid-19th century people called “archaic” in the KJB. He would have noticed that the same words that get attacked today were already listed and defined there.

When we hear Mark Ward speak, then, we are not hearing a dispassionate, fair and impartial treatment of the subject. No, we are hearing a propagandist. Ward’s background and interests are much more around visual communication and public relations than about teaching and edifying the dumb lambs of the Body of Christ.

Besides his self-promotion, he has a very clear agenda, and it is about product sales and trying to infect King James Bibles users with modernist thinking.

So there’s no need to buy Mark Ward’s books when plenty of superior information is freely available:

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookag00eastgoog

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookag01eastgoog

https://archive.org/details/thebiblewordbook00wriguoft

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookglo00wrig

https://archive.org/details/biblewordbookglo00wrigiala

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel, the men of old were men of renown.

Isn’t it funny that the same words which are said to be “archaic” or difficult or whatever then are the same today… maybe we are reading Biblical English after all, and not “1611 English”. I’d go so far to say that these same words would be ones ploughboys in 1611 would have struggled with.

Tim Berg, a young rejector of the perfection of the King James Bible, on increasing his scholarly repertoire, was reading David Daniell.

David Daniell, a literary scholar who has now passed away, much preferred the Tyndale Bible to the King James Bible and wrote quite negatively of the King James Bible.

In the Preface to his book, The Bible In English, he bemoans the collapse in knowledge of the Scripture. One might offer to him the solution to the problem: reinstate the King James Bible. But it is apparent that DD did not want to do that, because he wanted to tear it down.

I want to focus on one paragraph, called “Lighting”. He writes, “Some of the work in this book has to be the switching-off of special lighting, to reveal an illusion for what it is.” He is trying to say that the King James Bible has been wrongly exalted and loved, that the KJB is really false light and its beauty, power and magnificence is merely an illusion.

DD exhibits absolute blindness to the achievements of the KJB, and is clearly fighting against the Providences which are with it.

He writes, “The sudden elevation of that 1611 ‘AV’ (KJV) to near divine status in 1769, and, for many people, for ever after, so that ‘Avolatry’ went hand in hand with the mindless adoration of Shakespeare (‘Bardolatry’) for two hundred years and more, is a strange phenomenon, especially as it went with the radical alteration of both texts.”

This statement is packed with lies. It seems strange to assert that the KJB suddenly was elevated in 1769. He doesn’t provide documentary evidence for this assertion. (Why isn’t it a good thing that the KJB has been upheld?)

Second, he exhibits his cynicism towards Shakespeare, but links the KJB and Shakespeare — something which ordinary Christians haven’t gone out of their way to state, though some literary types will praise the KJB and Shakespeare, but this seems quite mad to question.

Third, he charges the KJB with having been radically altered. This is a clearly delusional charge, as the KJB has barely changed at all, except mainly in orthography.

He goes onwards, writing, “Stranger still is a twentieth-century insistence in large parts of the United States of America that this version, imagined to be the personal work of King James the First, and known. often as the ‘Saint James Version’, is the ‘inerrant Word of God’, unchallengeable even to its merest dot and comma.”

Here is conflates two different things, one is that there are some people who ignorantly think that King James made that Bible, and they even call the Bible the “St James”. The other is that the KJB should not be changed even in a dot or comma.”

Well, those two things are completely unrelated, yet for propaganda purposes he affixes them. In reality, the second position is a real one, and has found expression in the doctrine of the Pure Cambridge Edition, which came to world attention after DD wrote his book in 2003.

But to make it clear, the purity of the KJB to the dot and letter is not based upon some special “revelation” or special inspiration or something, which is what DD is really implying is being believed. He doesn’t describe the believing side well at all, here or in other places in his book.

DD really is the same as the rest of the unbelieving scholars who hold a low view of the King James Bible, such as F. H. A. Scrivener, C. Hill, M. Black, D. Norton, D. McKitterick, A. Nicholson, etc. (Three Davids among their number.)

DD’s desire to bring back the Bible is good, but he could not have been trusted to do it since he quite unscholastically believed that the KJB had suffered “radical alteration” of its text since 1611.

There is of course no proof of that. The same readings and translation that is there in 1611 is there today. We have a history of editorial work, but that is not designed to change the actual work of 1611, just do things like correct printing errors, standardise spelling and other such editorial regularisation.

Tim Berg would do well to not uphold David Daniell as a guide or hero. Notwithstanding DD did make some good points about the need to recognise the Bible in 16^th century history and the importance of the KJB over the Geneva in the minds of mid-17^th century Christians, he nevertheless had many negative and blindingly bad views of the KJB.

One cannot wish for the permeating knowledge of the greatness of the KJB on one hand, and yet pull it down and delegitimise it with the other. That is why I say DD was mad.

Near the end of DD’s book is a whole section dedicated to ridiculing those who use the KJB, mischaracterising the exclusive use of the King James Bible and making some very strange, ignorant and downright untrue charges, all of which is designed to make a Bible lover look a maniac. (There have been actual extremists and problems of course.)

DD shows his colours in making out that the lovers of the KJB are “anti-communists” while drawing a quote from the heretical Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is the early 2000s way of saying that KJB precisionists (to draw on the old name for Puritans), are worse than a certain political ideology of the 20th century.

He is driven to label the KJB “already archaic in 1611, often erroneous, sometimes unintelligible”, and he seems perplexed that people still uphold the KJB in present day America.

Tim Burg has chosen his side, aligning to those who would dethrone the KJB and to besmirch those that uphold it. It’s a sad thing to see that Tim Burg didn’t instead think that he could promote and uphold the KJB better than those he saw doing a bad job of it, and instead has shaken his fist at it.

SETTING THE SCENE

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.

RUCKMAN

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.

MY RESPONSE TO RUCKMAN’S POSITION

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 →

PART ONE

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 →