Bryan C. Ross sets a clear, pastoral tone from the outset: he is “unequivocally a King James Bible Believer” who holds that “the KJB is God’s word for English speaking people,” that God “inspired his word and preserved it,” and that the King James is a “formal equivalent (literal) translation.” Those commitments frame his inquiry into orthography and textual transmission rather than an academic neutrality detached from conviction.
Ross begins by naming the problem many of us have seen in the pews and online: headlines and tracts that ask, Is it a real KJV? He recounts the concern that modern KJV printings change spellings such as “throughly” to “thoroughly,” “alway” to “always,” “ensample” to “example,” or “stablish” to “establish,” and that some have claimed such changes amount to a corruption on par with modern versions. Ross plainly states the purpose of his study: to investigate whether those words are “wholly different words” or simply orthographic variants. After extensive research he writes, “I have become convinced it is not true” that they are different words of different meaning.
A short orthographic history helps explain why these questions arise. Ross reminds us that in 1611 there was no uniform spelling standard: printers and authors used many variants. He even reproduces examples from Genesis 1 to show alternate spellings (heaven/heauen, void/voyde, darkness/darkeneffe, upon/vpon, etc.), and he notes changes in capitalization that flowed from the original Gothic type and Germanic influence. These are explained as developments in convention, not changes in doctrinal content: “Such changes are inconsequential as well as expected and understood by King James Bible Believers to be part of the normal orthographical development of the English language between 1611 and 1769.”
Ross also confronts the trap of demanding verbatim identicality. He cites David Norton’s painstaking work (Appendix 8 cataloguing many variants) to show the factual diversity among printed KJV texts: Norton chronicles hundreds of variant readings between 1611 and 1769. Ross asks whether demanding identical wording is realistic, and he frames the key distinction: there is a difference “between 1) a different way of saying the same thing and 2) a substantive difference in meaning.” If we insist on verbatim sameness, Ross warns, we are forced to pick one single printing as the only inerrant edition — a conclusion critics have long used against KJV defenders.
To answer whether the suspect words carry distinct meanings, Ross examined dictionaries and synonym compendia from the 17th century forward. He lists consulted works (from Cawdrey 1604 and Bullokar 1616 through Bailey, Johnson, Webster 1828, Skeat, and the OED). His conclusion is firm: English reference works do not support the claimed discriminations. In the case of “throughly” and “thoroughly,” for example, Ross shows that reference works treat “throughly” as an archaic form of “thoroughly” and that dictionaries routinely cross‑reference the two. He summarizes the net result: these orthographic differences often amount to “a difference without a distinction.”
Ross’s pastoral counsel follows naturally from his findings. He states plainly that King James advocates should not advance claims that outstrip the historical and textual facts: “It is not productive for King James Bible Believers to assert things which can easily be proven inconsistent by further comprehensive study of the historical and textual facts.” From a right‑division, Mid‑Acts perspective that affirms the KJV as the preserved word for English speakers, that counsel matters: defend the text, but do so with accuracy and consistency. Ross also signals that the orthographic shifts in question are not a late novelty—American printings were making such updates well before 1881—and he reserves Part II of his work to show that history.
In our churches the pastor’s work is to feed, edify, and defend the flock. Ross’s study provides two practical helps: first, it grounds confidence in the KJV as God’s preserved, inerrant translation for English speakers; second, it urges sobriety in how we defend that confidence. Orthography, punctuation, and the standardization of spelling are part of the history of an English Bible; they do not equal doctrinal corruption. Let us therefore contend earnestly for the faith and for the final authority of the King James Bible, but do so in ways that are historically and textually honest, consistent with the careful study Ross lays before us.