by Matthew Verschuur
This is a review and refutation of two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4QsEsEspKs
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81OXcdQl62M
THEISTIC REALISM
Theistic Realism (i.e. Theistic Conceptual Realism) argues that truth exists in eternity, in the mind of God, and that everything is conceptually perfect there. This means that thought existed, and of course, when God speaks in Genesis 1, He has language to use. The key component of language is words. Words represent concepts. And since this is God’s use of words, this would be God’s use of exact words to mean exact concepts.
Further, God communicates to man, as He begins to do in Genesis 1 before men exist, yet He speaks and afterwards reveals the record of it, so that we see it by the writing of Moses, which we have this day, and so we can read or hear what God said.
When God spoke, He communicated the exact concepts He was conceiving
and used specific words to convey those concepts.
In fact, we can be sure that God knew in eternity all about the creation, fall and salvation of mankind and the “Bible” message He was going to communicate to man to inform them of this salvation.
We also know that in the beginning when God created the heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1, that in Heaven He has a place there which we shall call the Heavenly Sanctuary, and that this has a book. This book is the Book of books, the perfect form, the Holy Scripture.
When we read in 1 John 5:7 (an heavily attacked verse) that God, now manifesting in three Nicaean persons of the Trinity, bare record in Heaven, we can see that this is a legal document, and that they, the members of the Godhead, are bearing record of the Holy Bible, the Book of books, in the sanctuary in Heaven, known in Psalm 40 as the volume of the book.
It is only proper that God revealed the contents of this Book
of books in Heaven to believers on Earth. And so, piecemeal by piecemeal, the
holy words were written by inspiration, over many centuries by many good men,
which revealed below on Earth what was in the perfect form above.
And so, the same God who inspired also preserved textually, which is to say there was actually scattering and gathering. And there was also a preservation of the concepts of Scripture. Not by identical markings on the page, because at some point the Hebrew and Greek were being translated. So there was never this false notion of “verbatim identicality” which Bryan Ross cannot even explain (identical to what?), but there was rather the turning of the same concepts in one language to the concepts in another.
Now there are promises in the Scripture that in time there should be the exact words of God in Earth. Let us consider for a moment the Reformation English translations. Take one like the Tyndale or the Geneva, it was the Scripture, but it wasn’t exact, there are issues in its readings, its translation, etc. but not so much as to not make it the Word of God.
So then, when was the Text settled? It was settled with the King James Bible. And likewise the translation into English.
Now we know that the KJB men were not inspired, but acting
in line with providence.
THE PLAIN PERFECTION
The question then arises as to where are the perfect words of God, since the Bible makes continual reference to “words”. Believers have been able to say that they believe that the King James Bible words are right, that they represent that words of the Autographs. But where is this perfect Word? At one time many years ago as I was thinking about these things, I thought maybe it could be the unknown master copy that was sent to the press in 1611, that this was sort of like a perfect form. But it is pretty obvious that the master copy written in pen of the KJB, which might have been a bit messy, certainly did not have standardised spelling, etc. Like the actual Autographs of Scripture, the print master of 1611 is lost because the whole process is ultimately based on the fact that the Scripture in Earth is reflecting that there is a perfect master copy in Heaven.
The fact is, all we see are imperfect copies in the original languages and imperfect former translations. We see the Text and the translation there in the first printing of 1611. But we don’t have perfect printing back then.
When I say perfect, I am not playing games by using the OED to (re)define the meaning, I mean actually perfect, immaculate, spotless, pristine, pure and precisely exact in this context. (The OED is a descriptive dictionary not a prescriptive one.)
We see a trend of editing in the King James Bible over the
years, and we see the standardisation of the language, we see the correcting of
press errors, we see spelling and grammar being adjusted to a proper format.
All of this shows that it was morally right that Blayney did what was necessary and edited the KJB. When I first interacted with Bryan making this point, he literally mocked me and his friends laughed me to scorn. They did not seem to comprehend that it was morally correct for Blayney to edit as an important work in the line of history of editing the KJB.
I actually don’t know why Ross mocked me for that, but it showed that Ross did not see a line of improvement from 1611 to the 20th century in the editions of the KJB. In a way it seems to me like a kind of anti-authoritarian approach, that they could not have God working in history towards a standard, because Ross wants to allow for all these different editions which differ on various minor spellings and punctuation etc. to be acceptable without having to nail down that God would be working with a specific care for the editing.
In this, Ross does not seem to exemplify the same fear King
James Bible supporters (going back to the Puritans) have spoken of when they
have referred to trembling before the words and syllables of the Scripture.
“Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word;
Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let
the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be
ashamed.” (Isaiah 66:5).
Ross argues that the KJB can be giving the message of God and that this message can be accepted even if it is altered within parameters. For example, he would view the Geneva as fine, because it is different without “substantively” altering the words. While he seems to think that the KJB words are the best words out of options, he is open to a certain matrix of variation.
This looseness in the moorings of the KJB’s Text and translation is one thing, but it means then that he is loath to say that there is an edition which is exactly right or a standard or presenting the Text and translation in a acceptable fixed way.
It’s like arguing for a kind of libertarianism, to say “free choice of editions”. This doesn’t sit well with me and indicates potentially a small rebellious streak.
Words have meaning. Therefore, like law, words are important. And who wants to undermine the rigidity of the law? The devil himself. Therefore anything undermining the certainty of fixed concepts with precise language is likely to drift in a direction away from God.
THE VERBATIM INDENTICALITY STRAWMAN
Ross is also intellectually unfair in how he labels anyone who doesn’t have a “looseness” of possibilities (within paramaters) approach like him as being someone who is essentially like a Robotic Photocopier Machine adherent. He presents his views as a kind of King James Bible libertarianism while he labels those who believe in the literal Law of God as existing in a rigid fixed form as being promoters of something called “Verbatim Identicality”. What he is trying to say is that those who aren’t like him for the King James Bible must be saying that the KJB is Robotic Photocopier Machine copy of the original Autographs… or something.
If Ross’ enemies are believers in “Verbatim Identicality”,
then what are they claiming “Verbatim Identicality” with? Clearly no one credible
and normal is claiming that actually.
For example, I claim Conceptual Identity between the KJB,
the Originals and the Heavenly Book. But where is Ross’ conceptual standard
Bible, since he does not believe in absolute and finite accuracy of punctuation,
spelling and so on?
You see, you need, for legal reasons, accuracy of words and punctuation. I am not a maths person, but in the maths universe 20 + 30 + 50 = 100, but it seems like Ross is more into ~20 + ~30 + ~51 = ~100. He genuinely seems to think that there is no strict relationship between words, punctuation, word order etc. that must equal absolute conceptual accuracy. Therefore, God’s words are near enough when it comes to editorial work. He’s okay with the Text and translation of the KJB, but when it comes to actual conceptual accuracy through editing, suddenly he literally cannot tell the difference between “ensample” and “example”.
Dean Burgon said of the KJB translators, “Nay, even when
they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on
invariably expressing ‘the same notion’ by employing ‘the same particular
word;’ — (which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account,
may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;) — we are still
disposed to avow ourselves of their mind.”
Ross will take that the wrong way, that this “freedom” to render means that any option is a live choice. But Burgon makes clear it is the opposite, that in fact there are reasons compelling specificity, that the same original word does not require the same English word is true, but the exact English word to be used is important.
Burgon wrote further of the translators, “Here also however,
as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations
of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed, —
any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject ‘purpose,’
‘journey,’ ‘think,’ ‘pain,’ ‘joy,’ — in favour of ‘intent,’ ‘travel,’
‘suppose,’ ‘ache,’ ‘gladness.’ But then it speedily becomes evident that, at
the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611
a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate
of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.
Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an
uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’”
Conceptual accuracy requires the variation of English according to the nuance. And we can apply that on editorial level, it is not open season to say editing can remain in a state of flux, but the opposite, that editing must reflect the very nuance of the concepts, and they are communicated by the very niceties and fine details of English, and that in turn is a mirror to the Heavenly volume of the Book. Therefore, editing must come to a definite form.
THE FAITH WALK
Ross tells a story of how in 2011 he read Norton, and began to question David Raegan’s shallow views, and question KJBO talking points. At least Ross did not reject KJBO like so many others have done in the same circumstances.
I will quickly reiterate part of my own story. Back in the early 2000s I knew there were variations in editions, and I was reading everything I could, and communicated with many of the following: Burgon, Hills, Holland, Riplinger, Ruckman, Waite, Raegan and David Norton before he ever published. (Read more from the following sources: https://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf , https://www.bibleprotector.com/norris.pdf , https://www.bibleprotector.com/blog/?p=1080 and https://www.bibleprotector.com/VB.pdf ).
I was critical of the “simplicity” in general of the KJBO side already between 2003 and 2007, and could refute all kinds of problems with what people were saying about editions and other KJB argumentation, which I did publicly from 2007. One important thing was that I did not allow the seeds of modernism (i.e. David Norton’s approach) take me away.
Here’s the important point: I did not allow “sight” to
dictate how to interpret faith in the promises of the Scripture about the KJB.
In fact, I have been very much about the Scriptural argument FOR the KJB rather
than KJB being a fight (reaction) against modern versions/translations.
Whereas Bryan Ross began in 2011 from an empirical approach
of seeing things that Norton showed and then reacted accordingly. (Sadly,
walking slightly by sight rather than by pure faith.)
Thus, I had already strongly understood God’s work in the course of history toward having a perfect Earthly form of the Scripture, whereas Bryan Ross seemed to be trying to accommodate different editions like there was no final certainty and that there was no conceptual absolute perfection in relation to having a standard and correct edition of the KJB. (Norton’s exact position!)
In fact, Ross has in some ways tried to create a “fire storm” to not have a universe where God has not worked towards mankind having access to a copy of Scripture where there are words with punctuation and lettering that communicates exactly knowable meanings, but instead, that God’s message is sort of rolling around like a loose joint in the various editions of the KJB without God actually intending to have finality, perfection (in the blatantly obvious meaning of that word) and exactness of one precise set of words of an edition of the KJB.
Meaning, in fact, is in the mind of God, and this comes to a derivative concept, which is that God has communicated His Word with words with the intent that the world know the truth, and not only so, but be able to know properly, which is to say, that proper interpretation is accessible.
“5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning;
and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
“6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the
words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
“23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my
spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.”
(Proverbs 1:5, 6, 23).
Of course, Christians can tap into this spirit of knowing, but to argue otherwise is to argue for not knowing, ignorance and is counter to blessing. This may be illustrated by Ross being unable to tell the difference between “example” and “ensample”.
My point in saying this is that if a person does not take the faith step towards understanding God’s work in history of having a standard edition, it is in this case because there a little bit of the modernist thinking which is blocking clarity. In fact, that lack of clarity is shown in Bryan Ross floundering around about “terms” versus “words”, which idea I have surpassed in addressing in the section Theistic Realism.
MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
Ross goes on to show how Ruckman did not believe that the Autographs and the KJB were letter for letter identical. Of course they are not, but Ruckman wanted to argue that somehow God was intervening to make the KJB better than the Autographs originals beyond how God actually made the KJB better than the original autographs. (While the world now speaks English more and more and we have a full 66 book Bible with a perfect Text, that’s not what can be said about the partial, varying and foreign original manuscripts, nor the elusive and varying TR editions.
Ross mentions the marginal material at Psalm 12, but does not seem to understand that what is in the margins is the rejected “chaff”. In the case of notes beginning with “Heb”, this means an literal rendering but which was considered an incorrect sense by the 1611 translators. Thus, in Psalm 12 the margin gives a different translation than what was in the main rendering. The marginal translation is technically possible but not is equal to what was placed as the main rendering. By which I mean that the margin (centre column) represents something which hypothetically could be valid because the reader was invited to check, but since it was reasonably rejected by the translators, and after of 400 years of public checking, it is confirmed as invalid. As God requires purity and perfection in Text and Translation, so He has not kept a question or allowed a state of (lingering) doubt as to what is correct. Thus, the centre column material should never be regarded as inspired scripture but as providentially rejected and otherwise informative material.
Ross also discusses the area of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18. I have argued that the idea of the promises and prophecies being fulfilled in history is needful, but also it must have a meaning about the very lettering of the Scripture. There are those who try to tie the promise to the Hebrew language since they say jots and tittles are parts of Hebrew letters. But the words “jot” and “tittle” are English words, and therefore can then apply to English letters. Now Jesus is referring to the promises, and the promises are written, and the written Scripture is made up of words, and words have meaning. Since we have Scripture in English, and it is for the world, then it follows that Jesus can have been prophesying specifically about the King James Bible.
But Ross tries to downplay the promise about having accuracy of letters of Scripture, because he is trying to create a system of non-specificity, where he is not locked to an actual conceptually accurate standard in a written form when it comes to the editorial perfection within the printed and edited presentational history of the King James Bible.
Ross draws his interpretation here from those commentators influenced
by modernism, which does not highlight the importance of the accuracy of the
letters of Scripture as being requisite parts of words which in turn present
exact concepts. (There are plenty of promises where the very exactness of the
passage hinges on a letter, as in Galatians 3:20, “Now to Abraham and his seed
were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ.”)
If Ross believes that the KJB is God’s words in English, then why cannot he extend that God has outworked for a standard edition? The irony is that Ross cannot point to a standard edition (for example when discussing italics) yet has to use some standard edition to compare between today and 1611. He surely knows that it makes sense to have a “point of reference”, but as such, he is reluctant to allow for the precision of an edition. Essentially, he can accept the version of 1611, the translation of 1611 but will not go further and allow for an edition. In doing so he begins to loose the bands that point to the correctness of the KJB, and he begins to accommodate the possibility for something to change within the KJB. This is certainly a danger in his small movement.
In fact, there is a kind of a hint that they do not believe in actual a perfect, exact, final translation, as much as they are content that the KJB merely is good and the best translation.
PSALM 12 AND THE PROCESS OF PURIFICATION
Psalm 12 is a prophetic psalm. Ross specifically argues that Psalm 12:6 is not about any process in history, where it states, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
Ross rightly understands that God’s words are pure, and were
pure when David wrote Psalm 12, and at any time in history, so the pure Word of
God must have been preserved from King David’s time to 1611. This is true, but
he does not go into full detail how.
In fact, people in general point to many varying and
incomplete copies so they wonder how could the Word of God be pure from the inspiration
of the Autographs until 1611? The answer is very simple: that as long as the
Scripture exists and is copied, regardless of minor flaws, and as long as the
Scripture existed also in translations, then preservation was the reason why
the Scripture existed, and since the Scripture itself is pure (God’s words
themselves are pure) then the pure Scripture has endured through history.
Let me explain it using Theological Realism as a presupposition:
God has the pure Scripture in His mind in eternity. The Trinity have it in
Heaven in Creation (and today). And it is written on Earth by inspiration. The Scripture,
wherever it is, and where it is incorrupt in its existence, though in torn,
badly written and various copies, it is not the ink and skins which are the
important thing, but the “inspiration” in the words themselves, passing down by
copies through time.
So then, Scripture is pure. The words exist.
But how is Scripture purified? Well, since inspiration there was a scattering in readings, so there needed to be a gathering of readings, and the TR editions are part of this.
So it is not the purification of the Scripture itself, but
rather a purification of how the Scripture is presented or its form, both that
the Text went through stages, and we can especially find fulfilment to the
prophecy of Revelation 10 in the fact that there were seven major English
translations of the Reformation period.
We can count seven times, and that leads us to the King Jame
Bible. But it is very important to show the difference between purification of
Text and translation and the fact that the Scripture is always ever pure.
This same logic applies to the King James Bible. The King
James Bible we can say is pure. But what about typographical errors? What about
the unstandardised spelling and grammatical forms of 1611? What about the need
for regularisation (including work on italics)?
So then, there is purity and there is a need for
purification.
Purification in editing means that in time the KJB came out
in better editions, it means that there were important editions with corrections
and work to ensure standardisation. So then the end of that process would be a
pure edition that doesn’t have typographical errors, has standardised spelling
and grammar and proper regularisation.
Sadly Bryan Ross is not at all clear about this. He knows
about the work that happened, but he doesn’t seem to perceive the process of
improvement is working towards a goal of purity even of the printing and
presentation.
In an ironic exchange, he told his interviewer that the
mechanism for correcting press errors and editing the King James Bible is
through the interaction of the Body of Christ with the KJB. This is a very
revealing exposure of Bryan Ross’ mindset, because he must therefore have to
accept the editing of the King James Bible, yet, at the same time, he seems to
refuse an editorial standard.
CONCLUSION
While Ross was right to not just take a blind view with some sort of redneck KJBO position, at the same time he has not articulated a good enough response. Instead of finding that God has outworked in history towards a pure edition, he has jumped the wrong way in his engaging with “sight”.
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).
The King James Bible is very clear in its words and
meanings, in line with Theistic Realism, (e.g. stablish vs. establish.)
I argue for the precise accuracy and necessity of every
word, letter and punctuation mark in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King
James Bible, asserting that even seemingly archaic or minor differences carry
distinct theological and linguistic weight.
I believe that the language of the King James Bible should
be considered as “Biblical English”, distinct yet completely communicable to
ordinary English. I believe that the best truths, best Bible and best theology
is in English, so according the Scripture prophecies, English should be taught
all over the world.
Every jot and tittle in the English of the KJB is necessary for exact meaning. Words that appear interchangeable — such as alway vs. always, flieth vs. fleeth, ensample vs. example— are distinct, with differing nuances and theological implications. Changes such as spelling alterations, punctuation shifts or word replacements alter meaning and undermine doctrinal clarity. Modern revised works and American variant spellings are threats to the unity and doctrinal exactness of Scripture.
The Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB presents exactly the perfect, divinely preserved English scripture. My monograph Glistering Truths is a meticulous defence of the King James Bible’s linguistic precision, arguing that every specific word, spelling and punctuation in the Pure Cambridge Edition carries divine intentionality and matters for biblical doctrine. Any change, even seemingly minor, is seen as a potential compromise in conveying the truth as God intended.
So I can point to actual words today, just as the Scripture promised, actual letters, jots and tittles, which are correct. Sadly, Bryan Ross cannot identify a word perfect editorial text, he can only identify a Bible version and translation which is conceptually correct, but no edition of that version and translation that is exactly correct in its communication of concepts to the very jot and tittle.
