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 19th to the 20th 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 20th 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 20th 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.