Abstract
Recently, Matthew Vershuur put out an article alleging that I (Bryan Ross) had misrepresented him and his unique position on the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Bible (KJB). Matthew’s article comes with a history of back-and-forth discussion. This article examines three key documents that frame an ongoing debate within King James Bible advocacy concerning the PCE. Earlier in Matthew Verschuur’s written work, Glistering Truths: Distinctions in Bible Words (2009), he asserted that “every jot and tittle” of the KJB is essential for conveying the “exact sense” of Scripture, elevating the PCE as the definitive standard of textual purity. I then wrote The King James Bible in America: An Orthographic, Historical, and Textual Investigation (2019, originally published online in 2017), in which I critique this position, arguing that Verschuur’s criteria logically exclude all non-PCE editions of the KJB from being considered the pure Word of God, thereby imposing an unrealistic standard of verbatim identicality of wording. In response, Verschuur’s 2025 article, Answering Allegations Made by Bryan Ross, denies exclusivity regarding the PCE as the standard, correct, and exact text and rejects the claim that non-PCE editions of the KJB are “corrupted,” while maintaining the necessity of precision in the PCE. A comparative analysis reveals a tension between Verschuur’s previously stated principles and his later disclaimers. This rejection of his own tenets highlights the logical implications of his original assertions. This discourse underscores broader questions of textual authority, editorial standards, and the coherence of perfection claims within King James Onlyism.
Introduction
The debate over the purity and perfection of the KJB has long been a point of contention among advocates of the King James Only position. Matthew Verschuur, through his 2009 monograph Glistering Truths, articulated a high (and novel) view of the King James Bible that elevates the PCE as the definitive standard. When Ross critiqued this position in the 2019 book The King James Bible in America, he argued that Verschuur’s claims logically exclude all other editions of the KJB from being considered the pure Word of God. In 2025, Verschuur responded by publishing a rebuttal denying Ross’s interpretation. However, a careful analysis of Verschuur’s own words reveals a fundamental inconsistency: while he verbally denies exclusivity regarding the PCE, his stated criteria logically necessitate that only the PCE can be regarded as perfect to the exclusion of all other KJB editions.
Verschuur’s Stated Standard in 2009
In Glistering Truths, Verschuur asserts:
“That every jot and tittle in our pure English Bible is necessary for giving the exact sense.” (Cover)
“The plan of this monograph is very simple. The first section gives the main argument, namely, That every jot and tittle in our pure English Bible is necessary for giving the exact sense.” (Overview, 3)
By “pure English Bible,” Verschuur means the PCE. Every jot and tittle (i.e., every letter, punctuation mark, and detail) is essential for conveying the “exact sense” of Scripture. If any jot or tittle is missing, altered, or different, the “exact sense” cannot be fully conveyed. Vershuur’s rationale leads to only one edition that preserves every jot and tittle exactly as defined by the standard (in this case, the PCE) that gives the “exact sense.” Any edition of the KJB that differs in spelling, capitalisation, punctuation, or word form from the PCE is logically incapable of giving the “exact sense” and therefore cannot meet the standard of perfection. The statements quoted above create an absolute criterion for textual perfection. It does not allow for minor variations or orthographic differences. Therefore, it excludes all non-PCE editions of the KJB from being considered “pure and perfect.”
“In fact, the King James Bible has been called the best translation in the world. If we look at this Bible, that is, at the proper edition of it—the Pure Cambridge Edition—we find that every word is right and good” (4)
“Rightness and exactness of words can be a matter of life and death. The very spelling of Bible words should be observed with the fear of God. . . In order to give the sense accurately, the exact words and letters and punctuation are required, “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8).” (9)
These quotes prove Verschuur believes the PCE has all the right words; this logically excludes any edition of the KJB with different wording and/or spelling than the PCE.
“By several examples, it should be seen that in the King James Bible, as presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition, that the very letters are important, indeed, that whole doctrines hang upon them” (11)
“Let us be perfectly clear, changing so much as the word order, spelling or punctuation is destructive.” (14)
Whole doctrines in the Bible do not hang on letters; they hang on Bible verses in context (1 Cor. 2:13). Verschuur’s approach to the Bible is rather telling, as it shows his presuppositions that lead him towards support of the PCE. The way doctrines are derived in the Bible is not by looking at a single letter or word in a single verse. If one does this, they are taking the verse out of context, and this opens the door for them to make up any doctrine they want. The correct way to study the Bible is to examine one verse in the context of all the other verses, while also keeping dispensational distinctions in mind. The Bible student must recognize that there are three applications to Scripture passages: 1.) the historical application (the passage meant something to the people in the time it was written), 2.) the doctrinal/dispensational application (the passage has a relation to other passages in the Scripture), and 3.) the spiritual/practical application (the passage has spiritual truths that are true in every dispensation). It is only by understanding the historical and dispensational application of a passage that one makes a spiritual application.
I agree with Verschuur that the differences in cases of words do mean things (i.e., “Word” being a title for Christ and “word” meaning the Scriptures). One comes to a distinction like this by comparing verses (i.e. Phil. 2:16 and 1 Jn. 1:1). Verschuur takes such distinctions too far; however, when he uses them to develop a doctrine surrounding the PCE and the printed editions of the King James Bible. Verschuur did not get to his view on the PCE by comparing Bible verses. He developed his position on the PCE through private interpretation (his Pentecostalism & Historicist interpretation of Revelation) to determine what he thinks the reality of the printed text should be, rather than what the actual reality was.
“The examples provided are ones which may show the superiority of the presentation of the Pure Cambridge Edition to some other editions of the King James Bible. In these cases, the Pure Cambridge is presenting the genuine and intended King James Bible wording” (16)
Once again, this logically excludes all other editions of the KJB besides the PCE.
“The King James Bible has not changed, for the same text and translation of 1611 are given in the Pure Cambridge Edition. What has changed is the correction of printers’ errors, the standardization of the language (e.g. spelling), and other regularization. Therefore, the Pure Cambridge Edition is presenting exactly, to the letter, the Word of God correctly in English.” (16).
Statements such as this logically lead to the conclusion that the PCE is the only perfect King James Bible to the exclusion of all other editions.
The above citations from Glistering Truths establish two critical principles:
- Every jot and tittle is essential for conveying the “exact sense” of Scripture.
- The PCE alone meets this standard by presenting the text “exactly, to the letter.”
Furthermore, Verschuur warns:
“Let no man presume that he can improve upon our English Bible as it now stands, pure and perfect.” (8)
This language frames the PCE as the culmination of a purification process, beyond which no alteration is permissible. By defining perfection in terms of absolute textual exactness (verbatim identicality of wording) —including spelling, capitalisation, and punctuation—Verschuur sets a standard that excludes any edition of the KJB differing from the PCE.
The Logical Implication
If every jot and tittle is necessary for the “exact sense,” and if the PCE alone possesses these features, then any edition that deviates—even slightly—from the PCE cannot meet Verschuur’s own criteria for perfection. Editions that spell “alway” as “always,” or “throughly” as “thoroughly,” or that differ in capitalisation or punctuation, fail to convey the “exact sense” as defined by Verschuur. Consequently, these editions are not “pure and perfect” by his standard.
This is not a matter of interpretation but of logical necessity. Verschuur’s position elevates the PCE as the exclusive embodiment of textual perfection. While he does not explicitly use the term “corrupted,” his insistence on absolute precision renders all non-PCE editions of the KJB deficient in the very quality he deems essential: the “exact sense” of Scripture.
My Interpretation in 2019
I recognised this implication and articulated it plainly in The King James Bible in America in both 2017 and later in 2019:
“In other words, if a single letter is out of place, the text is incapable of conveying the exact sense. Consequently, Brother Verschuur maintains implicitly if not explicitly that any Bible that changes the spelling of “alway” to “always” or “ensample” to “example” is a “corrupted” Bible and not capable of expressing the exact sense of scripture. So, unless one possesses a particular printing (circa 1900) from a particular press (Cambridge University Press), they do not possess the pure word of God, according to Bible Protector.” (Ross, p. 20)
My critique is not a misrepresentation but a logical deduction from Verschuur’s stated premises. If perfection requires absolute conformity to the PCE, then any deviation constitutes imperfection. I simply draw the conclusion that Verschuur’s own language demands.
Verschuur’s Denial in 2025
In his rebuttal, Answering Allegations Made by Bryan Ross, Verschuur writes:
“. . . I must steadfastly refuse Pastor Ross’ blatantly false accusation that I am saying that if it is not Pure Cambridge Edition, it is not the Word of God.” (p. 3)
This is a verbal denial of exclusivity, intended to clarify that Verschuur still regards other KJB editions as Scripture, even if he views the PCE as the most accurate or ideal form. However, as shown above, this denial conflicts with the logical implications of his 2009 position, which demands absolute precision for perfection. Herein lies the inconsistency. Verschuur denies exclusivity in principle, yet his earlier assertions make exclusivity inevitable. By claiming that “every jot and tittle” is necessary and that the PCE alone preserves them all, Verschuur logically excludes other editions of the KJB from being “pure and perfect.” His denial does not resolve the contradiction; it merely sidesteps the logical consequence of his own standard.
Conclusion
Matthew Verschuur’s position, as articulated in 2009, establishes a criterion of perfection that only the PCE satisfies. While he later denies that non-PCE editions are excluded from being the Word of God, this denial is incompatible with his earlier claims. The logical implication of his standard is clear:
- If every jot and tittle is necessary for giving “the exact sense,” and
- If the PCE alone presents the King James Bible “exactly, to the letter”,
Then any edition that does not match the PCE exactly is incapable of giving the “exact sense” and therefore cannot be considered the pure Word of God. This is not an interpretive stretch but a direct consequence of Verschuur’s own stated principles.
My interpretation in 2019 was not an exaggeration but a faithful representation of this unavoidable conclusion. The tension between Verschuur’s verbal denial in 2025 and the logical implications of his 2009 position underscores a fundamental inconsistency that remains unresolved.
Pastor Bryan C. Ross
Assistance Provided by Alex Bojko & Nathan Kooienga
Grace Life Bible Church
Grand Rapids, MI
December 2, 2025
Resources For Further Study
The King James Bible In America: An Orthographic, Historical, & Textual Investigation by Bryan C. Ross
The Myth of Verbatim Identicality: How God Actually Preserved His Word by David W. Reid & Bryan C. Ross
The KJB In America (YouTube Playlist)
The Myth Of Verbatim Identicality (YouTube Playlist)
Assessing The Printed History of the King James Text (YouTube Playlist)