Featured Other Christian Denominations and King James Only

Must have required some work on your part. Thank you for this useful information.

 

Agreed. An elderly man once indignantly told someone that reproached him of a Ruckmanite stand concerning the KJB: "my pastor taught me that the KJB is the inspired word of God long before Ruckman showed up".

As a Lebanese child, I recall overhearing my mother saying that the King James was the true Bible long before she had ever heard of "Ruckman".

By the way, I may be wrong, in your list there's

• Ohio Valley Association of Christian Baptist Churches of God

Aren't those "Baptist"?

 

What verse supports inspiration of translations then? My Bible states that was only given to those who wrote the Originals books!

 

Plenty, and I've showed them before. If you wish to discuss that, sure, begin a thread.

 

My Bible states that was only given to those who wrote the original books!

Please, please, please, show those verses and back up what you assert.
More than one to make a doctrine, right?

 

You have not showed any verses that clearly teach that Bible translations [after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration] are made by the process of inspiration to prophets and apostles.

You incorrectly appeal to translating that was part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles when it does not at all suggest that the process of inspiration continued after the completion of the New Testament.

 

I never heard of Wilkinson or Ray. I thought Lester Roloff was KJVO before Ruckman.
Also, plenty of non-native English speakers in the world are KJVO. Come to Beirut and I'll show you.
Anyway, excellently written. Will be using that post.

 

Perhaps you are trying to pigeonhole or define KJV-only way too broadly. Some of the statements to which you appeal are not necessarily what constitutes a KJV-only view.

It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view. It is not even considering the KJV to be the best overall English translation that is what constitutes a KJV-only view.

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV. Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view. What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they also make any exclusive, only claims for this one English translation--the KJV. Someone can consult the Hebrew or Greek texts for clarification and study and still be KJV-only if they also make exclusive claims for only one English translation—the KJV. Someone can read and consult concordances, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries and still be KJV-only. Someone can read another English Bible in order to criticize it and still be KJV-only.

KJV-only defines and describes any person who makes any absolute exclusive only claim for one English translation—the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible could accurately be described as KJV-only.

 

You're absolutely right, but

A) he has already touched on those nuances
B) some who say "we only use the KJV" secretly mean "we only believe the KJV".

 

Do you possibly forget about John Wesley's Bible translation which is said to have been popular in the US?

Peter Ruckman claimed as fact that the Received Text "is the text of Martin Luther's translation, John Wesley's translation, and also every translation that God used on the mission field from 1600 to 1901" (Bible Babel, p. 72). By his own statement, Ruckman in effect stated that the 1755 Wesley's New Testament belongs on his good tree. In his "Biblical line" in his book Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Ruckman included "the evangelistic preaching of Wesley" (p. 172). Ruckman wrote: “Wesley’s life and preaching were ruled by one Book, even though he translated some of his own” (History of N. T. Church, II, p. 26). Laurence Vance, another KJV-only advocate, claimed that Wesley's translation "was based on the Authorized Version" (Brief History, p. 39). William Grady also commended Wesley when he asked: "How do today's scholars compare to men like John Wesley" (Final Authority, p. 175). Doug Stauffer maintained that "John Wesley understood the value of the scriptures" (One Book Stands, p. 271). Timothy Morton observed: "John Wesley (1703-1791), the greater founder of Methodism, preached nearly 42,000 sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ" (Which Translation, p. 47). Bob Bevington wrote that “John Wesley knew the value of holy Scripture” (Bible Broadcaster, March, 2002, p. 2).

David Daniell pointed out that Wesley’s translation “was extremely popular in the USA” (Bible in English, p. 536). William Chamberlin noted that the first American edition of Wesley’s N. T. was printed in Philadelphia in 1791 (Catalogue of English Bible Translations, p. 538). He listed some other American editions as being printed in 1806, 1812, 1818, 1839, 1844, and he indicated that there were “many other” editions (p. 539).

In his introduction to a comparison of Wesley's N. T. to the KJV, Fred Corson wrote: "With a fidelity for the truth, Wesley strove for accuracy, conciseness, and clarity. The validation of his scholarship is attested by the fact that in the revision of the New Testament in 1870 at least three quarters of his twelve thousand changes were accepted and incorporated in the new text" (Wesley's N. T. Compared with the A. V., p. xii).

Wesley's New Testament has "straightway" instead of "by and by" (Matt. 13:21), "strain out" instead of "strain at" (Matt. 23:24), "dismissed his spirit" instead of "yielded up the ghost" (Matt. 27:50), "earnestly" instead of "instantly" (Luke 7:4), "I think not" instead of "I trow not" (Luke 17:9), "obeyeth not the Son" instead of "believeth not the Son" (John 3:36), "flock" instead of "fold" (John 10:16), "grain of wheat" instead of "corn of wheat" (John 12:24), "would" instead of "should" (John 13:11), "Joshua" instead of "Jesus" (Acts 7:45, Heb. 4:8), "church" instead of "churches" (Acts 9:31), "passover" instead of "Easter" (Acts 12:4), "presbyters" instead of "elders" (Acts 14:23), "robbers of temples" instead of "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:37), "love" instead of "charity" (1 Cor. 13:4), "behavior" instead of "conversation" (Gal. 1:13), "fruit of the light" instead of "fruit of the Spirit" (Eph. 5:9), "sodomites" instead of "them that defile themselves with mankind" (1 Tim. 1:10), "new convert" instead of "novice" (1 Tim. 3:6), "Be diligent to present thyself" instead of "Study to shew thyself" (2 Tim. 2:15), "hope" instead of "faith" (Heb. 10:23), "Lord God" instead of "Lord" (Rev. 1:8), "living creature" instead of "beast" (Rev. 6:3), and "tree of life" instead of "book of life" (Rev. 22:19).

 

All that doesn't mean it was a serious challenger to the status of the KJB.