Featured Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?

Please go ahead and expose me for standing for sound Bible doctrine that can be demonstrated to be taught in the Scriptures. You will be shining the light on my honest efforts to present the truth.

You will be shining the light on my accepting and believing the KJV as what it actually is [a good overall English translation with some archaic language, some translators' bias, and some imperfections] and for disagreeing with what it is not [an absolutely perfect, inspired, inerrant Bible translation, or the final authority].

You will be shining the light on my advocating the application of the same exact measures/standards justly. You will be making either righteous judgments against KJV-only use of double standards or unrighteous judgments in opposing the use of the same measures/standards for all Bible translations.

Thanks in effect for affirming that I am attempting to present the truth concerning actual claims made by KJV-only authors. I treat KJV-only authors as individuals which is why I quote each one directly even if they seem to be saying the same thing or almost the same thing. I also quote them favorably when they make points with which I agree.

 

It was obvious that I did not claim to be perfect. I asserted that I was attempting to present the truth, which is not arrogant at all.

What I merely and honestly noted was my sincere efforts to present the truth and to advocate the just application of the same measures/standards. There is nothing arrogant in my accepting and believing the KJV as what it actually is.

Perhaps some have their eyes closed to extreme KJV-only arrogance where KJV-only posters suggest that they cannot possibly be wrong in their claims for the KJV.

Does a certain poster have their eyes closed to posts of the KJV-only poster who suggests that anyone who disagree with his KJV-only opinions and interpretations is guilty of unbelief?

 

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, and it is not considering the KJV to be the best English translation.

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. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a form of KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would also qualify as being a KJV-only view since it involves accepting an exclusive, only claim for this one English translation.

On the other hand, this accurate term KJV-only does not suggest that every person who makes any KJV-only claims holds and accepts all the same ideas or uses identical arguments. Different individuals may use different arguments for their varying exclusive only claims for the KJV, and they may disagree with or even reject the arguments that others use for their exclusive only claims. Different individuals, groups, or camps can differ on some significant or important points and still be KJV-only. While the modern KJV-only movement may be diverse and multifaceted in some of its claims and teaching, it is united in making some type of exclusive only claim for one English translation--the KJV. The varying claims and arguments of different camps result from the underlying exclusive only claims that constitute KJV-only reasoning.

 

Some KJV-only advocates such as D. A. Waite seeks to maintain that the term KJV-only should apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers.

D. A. Waite tried to suggest that the “KJV-only camp” is “the Peter Ruckman camp” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 100). Waite contended that KJV-only “is a term for the Ruckmanites” (p. 67). Waite alleged that “Ruckman does not believe the Bible should be in Spanish, English, Russian, French, or any other language” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, p. 9). Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite’s factually incorrect claims would misrepresent and distort what Ruckman has actually written. According to a just application of Waite’s incomplete definition, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman does not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and does not claim that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

Perhaps D. A, Waite attempted to define the accurate term KJV-only too narrowly or tried to distort its meaning. Someone can be strongly anti-Ruckman as Waite is and still be KJV-only. Perhaps Waite should have been more careful with the truth since it is clear that he made some misleading or incorrect claims that misrepresented Ruckman’s own stated views.