I found this statement on a IFB church website:
"We believe that the bible is the verbally inspired and infallible, authoritative Word of God and that God gave the words of Scripture by inspiration without error in the original autographs. God promises that He will preserve His Words. Jesus said, “but my words shall not pass away” Matthew 24:35. We believe God kept that promise by preserving His infallible Word in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and that the Authorized Version (KJV) is an accurate English translation of the preserved Word of God."
Would you consider this statement to be
as a King James Only church?
It depends upon what they mean by accurate. If this church is making an exclusive only claim that the KJV provides an accurate English translation of every original-language word of Scripture, it would be KJV-only. Some may seem to use the word "accurate" to mean practically the same thing as perfect or inerrant. If they would claim that no other English Bible translation can be accurate in the same sense as they claim accurate for the KJV, it would suggest that they are KJV-only.
If they mean that the KJV is an accurate overall English Bible translation or accurate in a general overall sense, it would not be KJV-only.
D. A. 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). Waite wrote: “I have never said I believe in ‘
an inerrant KJV.’ That is pure Ruckmanism” (p. 65). When Waite himself directly and clearly 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).
KJV defender Glenn Conjurske observed: “Most of the King James Only men have of late been shy of the word ‘perfect,’ but if they ascribe to the King James Version what practically amounts to perfection, their scruples about the word ‘perfect’ signify nothing” (p. 127).
