What is the "King James Superiority" position vs the Ruckmanite KJVO position?

[Alan Gross]

The list of beliefs below in red bold describe the KJVO position of Peter Ruckman and are seen by the proponents of the KJV Superiority position to be utterly indefensible and unbelievable, along with it's synonyms, astonishing, implausible, impossible, inconceivable, outlandish, incredible, and preposterous.

So, by holding to the KJV Superiority position,

"... the majority of KJV advocates are not of the (KJVO) Ruckmanite origin or stripe. Many readers do go away confused, thinking that all defenders of the King James Bible are (KJVO) "Ruckmanites" and "heretics."

"It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the (KJVO) beliefs of Ruckman that:

the KJV is doubly inspired;

the KJV is advanced revelation;

the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;

the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;

there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired" English translation;

the KJV cannot be improved on ...

the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;

those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and

all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

To the KJV Superiority proponents, those are all just so many huge ridiculous lies.

They are from: Non-Ruckmanite Answers,
as well as these excerpts, below. The questions are directed at KJVO Ruckmanites, but they are being answered by a proponent of the KJV Superiority position.


(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some limit "the word of God" to only one 17th Century English translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611?

"We believe that "the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two Providentially preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorised Version and say ‘This is the Word of God!’ while at the same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture." (The Dean Burgon Society, "Articles of Faith," section II.A.)"

"Every Bible translation can be legitimately called "the Word of God" if it is true and faithful to the original and traditional text."

"God holds His people in every age responsible for using the divinely inspired and preserved original texts and only the faithful and accurate translations of His Word. The KJV-superiority position does not limit the Word of God to only one 17th Century English Translation, but advocates that the KJV, being still the most accurate English translation based on the purest texts, should be the only Bible used by English-speaking Christians today. To use other Bibles when the best is clearly available would be to neglect our responsibility."


"(6) Is any translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?

"God "inspired" or "breathed out" (Qeopneusto", 2 Tim 3:16) His words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Strictly speaking, the divinely inspired words were the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God gave to His Prophets and Apostles to pen the Holy Scriptures.

"What is the relation between the inspired text and its derived translation? By way of illustration, the original language Scripture underlying the KJV is like the perfect platinum yardstick of the Smithsonian Institute, infallible, inerrant, authoritative. The KJV and other accurate and reliable translations are like the common yardstick, though not 100% are good and safe enough for use. Although there may be a need to consult the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts especially when interpreting difficult verses, we do not believe that the King James translators were in any way careless in translating their Bible. The same however cannot be said of the modern versions—they are definitely shorter by many inches and far too unreliable."


"Once again we say that the KJV-superiority position does not mean that the KJV cannot be improved on or that the original language texts may not be used to shed further light on God’s truth found in the English Bible. The KJV-superiority position is merely the logical result of applying the principle that God holds His people in the English-speaking world (just as He holds those in other languages) responsible to use the best translation of the Bible that is presently available and done by the best translators (spiritually and academically qualified) from the best Hebrew and Greek texts (NOT the Westcott and Hort text BUT the traditional Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts) which possess all the qualities of infallibility and inerrancy since they possess all the originally inspired words that God has continuously preserved without the loss of any word to the jot and tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18)."

With comments that bare repeating, from the above, like, "The same however cannot be said of the modern versions—they are definitely shorter by many inches and far too unreliable", on that subject regarding the "modern versions", it struck me that,
"but by every word of God", is omitted from them, in Luke 4:4.

Precisely, what are we to make of that?

Some may reason, as I do, that for man to live by, "every word of God", they would need to be in possession of "every word of God",

because, it would be impossible to live by "every word of God", when much of it has been edited out and omitted from particular versions.

Then, since men can't live by something that is no longer there,
to delete and omit, "but by every word of God",
from those modern abridged editions only makes perfectly logical sense.

Do you feel me?

Here they are;

Luke 4:4

KJV: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

LSB: And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

NWT: But Jesus replied to him: "It is written, 'Man must not live by bread alone.'"

NAB: Jesus answered him, "Scripture has it, 'Not on bread alone shall man live.'"

????????

 

[Logos1560]

Some may reason, as I do, that for man to live by, "every word of God", they would need to be in possession of "every word of God",

because, it would be impossible to live by "every word of God", when much of it has been edited out and omitted from particular versions.

Then, since men can't live by something that is no longer there,
to delete and omit, "but by every word of God",
from those modern abridged editions only makes perfectly logical sense.

Six individual words [“that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”] spoken by Jesus as found in Matthew 4:4 are not preserved and presented in Luke 4:4.

Do you suggest that Luke 4:4's version of what Jesus said is the abridged edition of Matthew 4:4?

Could early readers of the gospel of Luke who did not have a copy of the gospel of Matthew live by every word of God since Luke does not have six words quoted and stated by Jesus?

Would a just application of your reasoning suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong to move Luke to omit six of the words stated by Jesus as quoted in Matthew 4:4?

Would a consistent application of your reasoning in effect suggest that Luke 4:4 casts doubt on part of what is stated in Matthew 4:4?

According to your reasoning, was it OK to omit or delete words in Luke 4:4 as long as they are somewhere else?

Would a consistent, just application of your claims and assertions condemn Luke 4:4 for not including and preserving every word that Jesus stated?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or misapplying what was meant by "every word."

 

[Logos1560]

Some KJV-only authors especially appeal to Matthew 4:4 as justification for a KJV-only view and in order to assert that there must be an every-word perfect Bible.

R. B. Ouellette wrote: “In Matthew 4:4, we are commanded to live by every Word of God” (More Sure Word, p. 77). David Sorenson asserted: “If God, from the time of Moses onward, required His people to live by every word which He has uttered in His Word, it therefore follows that God has preserved each and every one of those words” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 85). David Sorenson asked: “How can a just God require us to live by every word He has spoken if every one of His words does not continue to exist and be available for us?” (Ibid.). After referring to “God’s EVERY WORD doctrine,” Al Lacy asked: “Does man have EVERY WORD to live by today, or does he not?” (Can I Trust, p. 17), and he asked: “Do you believe that TODAY we have EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God … even in a translation?” (p. 24). In his preface to his book, Troy Clark wrote: “This book answers one simple question. Does there exist today an every-Word-of-God Bible?” (Perfect Bible, p. 18).

Jack Hyles declared: “I must find this perfect Bible that is without error with every word of God preserved” (Need for an Every-word Bible, p. 21). After quoting Matthew 4:4, Jack Hyles claimed: “You cannot live if you don’t have ‘every word’ (p. 17). Jack Hyles asserted: “We must have every word, so there has to be a perfect English Bible or we cannot live” (p. 45). Jack Hyles declared: “I must have every word to live. I must have every word to get my prayers answered. I must have every word to receive Christ” (p. 152). Dennis Corle asked: “If God requires me to live by every word, and He is a just God, would it be logical for me to assume that He made sure that I had all the words?” (God’s Inspired Book, p. 4). Dennis Corle claimed: “It would be unreasonable for God to expect me to live by every word if He did not make sure that I have all the words” (p. 86). Dennis Corle asserted: “God has given us an every word Bible, according to Matthew 4:4” (p. 37).

Roy Branson asked: “How could a fair and just God command us to live by every single word of His, if some of these words had been lost, or we knew not where to find them, or if one had to choose whose guess was most likely the best guess” (KJV1611, p. 74). Marty Braemer claimed: “We are instructed to live by every word of God, then doesn’t it stand to reason that God would give us an every word translation?” (This Little Light, p. 3). Marty Braemer asked: “How did God expect us to obey Deuteronomy 8:3 by living by every word if He (God) isn’t able to preserve those words for us?” (p. 10).

James Rasbeary declared: “I must have the words of God, all of them (Matt. 4:4) (What’s Wrong, pp. 26-27). Charles Keesee asserted: “I believe we need every word of God,” and “we need every word of God”(Subtle Apostasy, pp. 81, 229). Steve Combs claimed: “We must have all God’s Words if we are to live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth” (Practical Theology, p. 63). Lawrence Bednar asked: “How can we all live by every true word of God unless it is all truly preserved for us all?” (Evidence, p. 57). David W. Daniels asserted: “We want every word that God said” (51 Reasons, p. 38). David Daniels declared: “You want God’s complete words, nothing added, and nothing taken away” (p. 77). Joey Faust wrote: “A countless number of Christians have believed that they possessed a Bible wherein every word is perfect (Matthew 4:4)” (The Word, p. 33). After quoting Matthew 4:4, Barry Burton declared: “It says ‘every’ word. Don’t use a Bible that leaves out hundreds of words, phrases, and verses” (Let’s Weigh, p. 87). David O’Steen asserted: “If we are to live by every word of God (Deut. 8:3), we must have every word” (Study Notes, p. 36).

D. A. Waite, who is one of those who supposedly would hold a King James Superiority position in contrast to Ruckman's position, asked: “How can a person ‘live’ by ‘every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ if he does not have ‘every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”? (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 133). D. A. Waite declared: “The Lord Jesus Christ wants people to be able to live ‘by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 114). Waite asserted: “We cannot live by ‘every Word’ if we do not have ‘every word’” (Ibid.).

Gail Riplinger claimed: “We can have confidence that ‘every word’ in the King James Bible is the pure word of God” (Which Bible, p. 56). Pooyan Mehrshahi wrote: “Every man, both young and old, is a living soul that needs every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Riddle, Why I Preach, p. 176).

 

[JD731]

.
What is the "King James Superiority" position vs the Ruckmanite KJVO position?

Were the OT Hebrew scriptures that were quoted in the NT and written in Greek double inspired, or just inspired?

 

[Logos1560]

Were the OT Hebrew scriptures that were quoted in the NT and written in Greek double inspired, or just inspired?

Most of the time the Hebrew words are not directly quoted in the NT. A few times the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36).

The words given directly by inspiration of God (even when they may be translated words) to the apostles and NT prophets are the directly God-breathed words of the New Testament.

There would be no double inspiration in God giving to the apostles and NT prophets the words to write as the original-language words of the New Testament.

 

[JD731]

Most of the time the Hebrew words are not directly quoted in the NT. A few times the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36).

The words given directly by inspiration of God (even when they may be translated words) to the apostles and NT prophets are the directly God-breathed words of the New Testament.

There would be no double inspiration in God giving to the apostles and NT prophets the words to write as the original-language words of the New Testament.

Are you saying those references prove the point you are trying to Make? There is no text with them.

 

[Logos1560]

Are you saying those references prove the point you are trying to Make?

All my references are to verses in the KJV.

Are you suggesting that you are unable to read verses in the KJV?

 

[Logos1560]

"It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the (KJVO) beliefs of Ruckman that:

It is not claimed that all KJV-only advocates agree with every claim or opinion of Peter Ruckman concerning the KJV.

According to several of his very own statements. D. A. Waite clearly holds and advocates a KJV-only theory regardless of his claims that he does not.

Like Waite, some other KJV defenders strongly object to being identified accurately as KJV-only even though they clearly have made exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation--the KJV and even though they make statements that display KJV-only reasoning.

D. A. Waite has clearly made some exclusive "only" claims for the KJV that would provide valid, sound, convincing evidence for considering his position to be a form of “KJV-only” view.

D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). Waite asserted: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible is the only one that English speaking Christians ought to use” (p. 5). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). Waite asserted: “I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard. The translation of the King James Bible is a standard” (p. 23). Waite claimed: “Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use” (p. 133). Waite declared: “It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual’s knowledge of the Scriptures” (p. 144). In another book, Waite stated: “I am one of the Christians who contend that only the King James Bible gives us the Words of God in English” (Fundamental Deception, p. 33). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation” or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite wrote: “The King James Bible, because of its accurate translation of those Words [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek], can honestly and truly be called God’s Words kept intact in English” (p. 109). Waite asserted: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). Waite declared: “I have said many times before, and I believe, that there are no ‘translational errors’ In the King James Bible” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 42). When Waite himself directly contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that “intact” means “not touched” and “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would seem to be in effect or in practice trying to claim or at least imply perfection for the translating in the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1). Waite asserted: “The KING JAMES BIBLE is the Word of God in English, and the other versions are not” (p. 52).

 

[Logos1560]

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.

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 Bible 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 (univocally) 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 Bible translation.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

 

[JD731]

All my references are to verses in the KJV.

Are you suggesting that you are unable to read verses in the KJV?

I did not see anything but references. The references do not make your point. You have quoted thousands of so called experts and rarely a Bible verse. What gives?

 

[John of Japan]

Nevertheless, Waite, Tow, and others believe the KJV to be a perfect translation.

Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, and Ian Paisley did not take that position. I don't know about Cloud.

 

[Logos1560]

The accurate, clear, defined term KJV-only does not mean a follower of Peter Ruckman or Ruckmanite as some KJV-only advocates and KJV defenders incorrectly try to suggest.

KJV-only author D. A. Waite seeks to maintain that the term KJV-only should apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers. 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 misrepresent or distort its meaning. Someone can be strongly anti-Ruckman 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. Some TR-only advocates also seem to seek to try to apply incorrectly the term KJV-only to only Ruckman and his followers.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske asserted: “Mr. Waite finds three definitions of ‘King James Only,’ and none of them the true one” (Bible Version Controversy, p. 130).

 

[Logos1560]

"It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud,

While Edward F. Hills did not claim that the KJV was absolutely perfect, he did make an exclusive only claim for the KJV.

Edward F. Hills claimed that “only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 87).
Edward Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief“ (p. 55).

 

[37818]

Edward Hills suggested that “these modern versions are much more likely to spread doubt and unbelief” (p. 54) and that they lead young Christians “away from the Bible by introducing them to the logic of unbelief“ (p. 55).

Will I find KJVonlyism untenanle, on this point I think there is an element of truth, do to the fact, more often than not, most modern versions use a variant reading that can be shown to be wrong.

 

[Conan]

Will I find KJVonlyism untenanle, on this point I think there is an element of truth, do to the fact, more often than not, most modern versions use a variant reading that can be shown to be wrong.

Agreed that any Bible Version should be translated from the best Texts. And the best Texts are not Nestle/Aland UBS. KJVOnly is certainly untenable for sure. If they were not around, it would be time to discuss the errors in N/A.