Bryan C. Ross opens Volume 2 with a clear pastoral aim: to set forth the belief that the King James Bible is God’s Word for English-speaking people and to do so by allowing Scripture to set the terms of the discussion. He reminds readers that preservation is not merely an academic question but a matter that touches faith and the character of God (see the book’s stated purpose and the author’s repeated appeal to Scripture and faith).
Ross takes stock of the plain facts of textual history before drawing theological conclusions. He insists that the originals are not extant, that no two Greek manuscripts are exactly the same, that editions of the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text differ, and that no two English editions of the KJB are identical. Quoting Kevin Bauder (as Ross does), he warns that demanding “exact sameness” as the standard of preservation makes the situation appear dire: “If the preservation of the Word of God depends upon exact preservation of the words of the original documents, then the situation is dire.”
From those facts Ross develops his working standard: God promised preservation, but He did not preserve the autographs in a sealed, verbatim-identical sense. Instead, Ross argues the promise guarantees a preserved, pure text—what he calls a text maintained in its “fundamental character” so that doctrine, worship, and the faith of the saints are kept intact. He underscores that God did not supernaturally over-take the hand of every scribe or typesetter, yet differences exist without negating the divine promise (see Lessons 28–29 and the summary statements on preservation).
To illustrate how preservation can be providential without verbatim identity, Ross walks the reader through the book of Jeremiah. He shows that an original manuscript was burned (Jeremiah 36), that God re-instructed Jeremiah and added words, and that God later commanded the destruction of that re-composed scroll (Jeremiah 51:61–63). Yet God’s counsel was not lost: copies existed, Daniel read Jeremiah and understood the seventy years (Daniel 9:2), and later Matthew cites Jeremiah. Ross points out that Matthew’s citation is not a word-for-word Xerox of Jeremiah but is doctrinally equivalent—two ways of saying the same truth. The side-by-side renderings Ross supplies show the different KJV wordings and the point they together make about substantive equivalence.
Ross places this approach within a broader methodological warning. Quoting Edward F. Hills, he distinguishes a consistently Christian method of textual criticism from a naturalistic one. Hills (as Ross cites) warns that treating the New Testament like any other ancient book (the method of Westcott and Hort) follows a naturalistic presupposition that discounts divine inspiration and providence. Ross therefore urges that our thinking about preservation be guided by the Bible’s own claims and by a faith posture: “When in doubt, the viewpoint of faith is always best.”
Pastorally, Ross calls for humility and clarity. He rejects both the naive demand that every copy be verbatim identical to an autograph that no longer exists and the despairing claim that no reliable text survives. Instead, he urges confidence that God preserved His Word in a pure and usable form for His people—enough that Scripture could be quoted, believed, and applied across generations—while also admitting that among KJV defenders genuine nuance remains and that honest disagreement should be met with fair hearing rather than caricature. The proper response is neither frantic reconstruction nor skeptical capitulation, but trust in God’s promise and careful, Scripture-guided study.