Sometimes people have the wrong ideas, and little wrong ideas can lead to big wrong ideas.

The other day, I saw Bryan Ross try to say that basically the twelve passages that are used to identify the Pure Cambridge Edition were somehow something to do with Pentecostalism, as though the list had been compiled with largely or somewhat Pentecostal intentions.

You know, make a list that specifically or secretly is connected to Pentecostalism and then say if a Bible doesn’t match up with it, it isn’t pure. This is nonsense, and is so nonsense that I didn’t immediately realise that Bryan Ross was trying to make this point.

It’s a made up point, of course, because the twelves places to test whether an edition of the Pure Cambridge Edition were made not with reference to or because of Pentecostalism really at all.

Another of his wrong assumptions is about Historicism. Bryan Ross has hinted that there is a claim that there was something special in Historicism about the early 1900s, in relation to the rise of Pentecostalism and the making of the PCE and something special about 100 years later, with the discovery of the PCE.

The only thing is that both of these things are not really part of any Historicist framework. I mean, they could be connected in passing, but these events are not pointed to in a vivid way in Bible prophecy. This is probably in part because he does not understand Historicism, but also is actively framing rather than examining the information.

When someone looks at information, not to understand it, but with bias and prejudice to confirm some accusation, then it is usual to get these sorts of strange assumptions and erroneous judgment.

“Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth,” (James 3:5b).