What is King James Bible Only?
 

PLEASE NOTE: The following post is not intended to put people into a "box", as many people who are King James Bible only will believe somewhere on a spectrum.

This is my attempt to broadly classify views of the King James Bible in regard to most Christian users or general perceptions of users. This comparison of beliefs is a rough guideline only.

CLASS ONE: KING JAMES BIBLE FAVOURED (PREFERRED)

History: Because for many years the King James Bible was used, and due to tradition and conservative forces, that Bible has continued to have been used in certain movements and ministries, though not exclusively, and often modern versions might be used in conference, and there is a willingness to adopt modern King James Bible editions or versions.

Inspiration: The Autographs are 100% infallible, inspired and perfect.

Preservation: Overall the Word of God is preserved through time.

The KJB text: The KJB text is at least 99% correct.

The text in English: Overall the text of the Word is probably in English versions.

The KJB translation: Very good, but there are occasional areas which can be improved.

The KJB language/style: Generally good, but the archaic language is a stumbling block to new believers, which requires or allows for updating the language or other good versions to bring out the meaning better.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is faithful and reliable, but not perfect.

Other versions: Some other versions are valid or acceptable.

Other languages: The Word of God should continue to be translated into other languages.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will probably continue to be upheld by an extreme minority, but generally, with the changing language, new discoveries and progressive revelation of the Church, changes are inevitable.

Which edition of the KJB: Any current one.

CLASS TWO: KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDED (TR ONLY)

History: Because for many years the King James Bible was used, and due to tradition and conservative forces, that Bible has continued to have been used in certain movements and ministries. The principles of modernism are deficient, which means that the King James Bible must still continue to be the Bible for the present time.

Inspiration: The Autographs are 100% infallible, inspired and perfect.

Preservation: Overall the Word of God is preserved through time, specifically in the King James Bible.

The KJB text: The KJB text is correct.

The text in English: The Bible text is fully presented in English.

The KJB translation: Correct, but it is impossible to translate 100%, even though what it does translate is indeed valid.

The KJB language/style: Very good, but if the English language changes, alterations on the current English of the KJB may be necessary.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is faithful and reliable, and will never lead anyone astray.

Other versions: No other present English versions are acceptable.

Other languages: The Word of God can continue to be translated into other languages if they are done from the basis of the TR or from the KJB.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will continue to be used by a faithful minority of believers, and may, in the unknown future before the return of Christ, be yet altered in regards to the English only, and not the underlying texts.

Which edition of the KJB: Cambridge Edition best, but any edition.

CLASS THREE: KING JAMES BIBLE PURIST (ENGLISH PRESERVATIONIST)

History: Because for many years the King James Bible was used, and due to tradition and conservative forces, that Bible has continued to have been used by true believers. The principles of modernism are deficient, and the King James Bible is the providentially appointed correct Bible for the world.

Inspiration: The Autographs are 100% infallible, inspired and perfect.

Preservation: The Word of God is preserved through time, specifically in the King James Bible.

The KJB text: The KJB text is correct.

The text in English: The Bible text is fully presented in English.

The KJB translation: Fully perfect, equivalent to the originals in English.

The KJB language/style: Exact, no updating or changes are to be accepted.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is inerrant.

Other versions: No other present English versions are acceptable.

Other languages: With the world becoming conversant with English, the King James Bible alone is now to be promoted as the only form of the Bible for the whole world.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will continue to be used by a faithful minority of believers, and that by true revival, be restabilised as the Bible of the true Church throughout the Earth.

Which edition of the KJB: The Cambridge Edition generally, the Pure Cambridge Edition specifically.

CLASS FOUR: KING JAMES BIBLE EXTREMIST (SOME IS USED AS SLANDER)

History: Because the Apostle Paul used the King James Bible, so should true believers today.

Inspiration: The Autographs are irrelevant. The King James Bible itself was made by inspired men from 1604-1611, and is advanced revelation.

Preservation: The King James Bible is the Word of God.

The KJB text: The KJB text is correct.

The text in English: The Bible text is fully presented in English.

The KJB translation: Superior to the originals.

The KJB language/style: Exact in all editions.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is inerrant in all editions.

Other versions: No other present English versions are acceptable.

Other languages: Since the KJB is necessary for salvation, it is the Word for the world.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will continue to be used by a faithful minority of believers, until it is finally destroyed by the New World Order, etc.

Which edition of the KJB: Any edition, but the Cambridge Edition preferred.

Most teachers and leaders from every category would recognise a Cambridge printed King James Bible as the best.

It is universally recognised that the Cambridge Bibles are of a high quality, in presentation, typography, etc. Also, Cambridge has been associated with the King James Bible from the earliest years.

There are some now who are taking the step further and identifying one particular Cambridge Edition as the exact representative, and the one that God has providentially supplied.

I think you did a good job in classifying all the major areas of KJVOism. Well done.

Suggestion, you might want to add seminaries, colleges, schools, or teachers that espouse these views. That way reading materials can be compiled on each view. Just a suggestion though.

Now are people supposed to openly confess where they fit into the overall scheme of things? If so, where do you fit, bibleprotector?

I am not going to talk about other people here.

No one is compelled to say where they fit in. (After all, someone might disagree, or think that I have misrepresented their position.)

I am a pure KJBO.

Can you at least disclose colleges or seminaries. I know Ambassador Baptist College fits somewhere near the defended view. How about Hyles-Anderson, Pensacola Christian College, & others?

I said I am not going to talk about other people here. I will let others discuss it if they wish.

What is King James Only?
 

Well I see that I have been beaten to the puch.

No matter, I shall post what I was intending to now.

When searching back through the greater part of Church history I do not find the presents of the phrase “King James Only”. These words are absent from the lips or the written pages of countless Christians for the exceptional part of history. The reasons for this are three fold:

• For one, Bible believers of the past believed in the Bible, and not one verse in the Bible tells us to believe in the King James Bible and/or any other Version for that matter. Yet it does lend to the belief in only one Bible which we will discuss latter.

• Two, The King James Bible did not exist throughout all history, nor did the English language; therefore, it could not have been an issue.

• Three, When the King James Bible did appear, it was accepted by the church as the word of God in English, hence there was not controversy accenting it in opposition to any other version.

Although, the phrase was not paramount throughout the better part of Church history, Bible believers of past did recognize that the Scriptures indubitably put-forth the promise of preservation (see Matt. 5:18). Listen to the Westminster Confession of Faith:

[QUOTE;1533] The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[/QUOTE]

The particular part to pay attention to is “…kept pure in all ages…”. This distinctive expression clearly shows the belief that the scriptures were preserved. And I could list a half a dozen to a dozen quotations that evidence such (whoever would like, I will post them on request). In as much, it makes sense that His word must exist in their day as well as ours. The precise phrase “King James Only” is then, of really recent origins.

Where the phrase exactly came from is unknown. No one knows for sure.

Wikipedia states:
By 1995 the phrase was popularized widely through the writing of James R. White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, when he published The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Not to mention that John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s book The Facts On The King James Only Debate: How Reliable Are Today’s Bible Versions? further popularized it. Be that as it may, we have the phrase now and must deal with it.

However, was it the product of King James Bible zealots or Modern antagonist? Donald A. Wait in a two part audio sermon claims that the phrase is a ‘smear word’ (see http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2307164925 and http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=260713240 ), while James R. White contends that that the phrase is not insulting nor inaccurate (see The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House. 1995, p. 248.) Why the difference? The answer to this I think, will be found when we determine how broad or who narrow we want to read the phrase ”King James Only.”

Men such a David H. Sorenson limit the phrase to all that are like Peter S. Ruckman:
He also mentions those who would claim that the King James Bible is not just for English speaking peoples, but also for non-English speaking peoples. Which means, that if a non-English speaking person wants the Word of God he must learn English.

Now, Sorenson’s position is termed The Preserved Text Position (Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, p. 30). The book is very good in that it makes a good case for our King James Bible as the standard.

On the converse side, James R. White widens the term considerably. He mentions 5 main variations: 1.) I like the KJV best (they prefer the KJV as the best English Translation in existence but who would not be opposed to a better one arriving in the future); 2.) The Textual Argument (they prefer the Hebrew and Greek MSS. underlining the KJV as superior not as inspired but as more accurate to the originals); 3.) Received Text Only (they prefer the Textus Receptus as being inerrant and the received Hebrew text as well, but they do not consider the KJV as inerrant); 4.) The Inspired KJV Group (they believe that KJV in English is inspired and at that inerrant via preservation); 5.) The KJV As New Revelation (they hold to the idea that the KJV is inspired revelation and hence, can correct the Greek and Hebrew MSS.). Of course he also includes in a foot note a sixth group we can call 6.) The Eternal KJV Group; he writes of them:

.

Now what is painfully obvious, is that White paints too broad a brush. One I suspect is inaccurate. Yet, Sorenson, in my opinion is too narrow in his limitations. So what do we do? After spending years reading (hundreds of books, hundreds of articles & pamphlets, and hundreds of web-sites), not to mention the dozens audio and video heard and watched; I can say two main things. 1.) Their does exist variation within the King James Only Camp; 2.) Their does exist certain parameters that define one as King James Only.

The Variations (Will delineate upon request)

A. TR is generally accurate, but could use some revision

B. TR is absolutely perfect, and needs no revision

C. The KJB is generally accurate, but could use some minor revising

D. The KJB is absolutely perfect, and needs no revision

The parameters that define KJVO

1. All agree that God’s Authoritative Word exists today.

2. All emphasize the Bible doctrine of preservation

3. All reject the Westscott/Hort textual theory

4. All reject the Westscott/Hort Greek Text

5. All believe that the Modern English Versions are founded on bad and corrupt manuscripts

6. All believe that the King James Authorized Bible is the only link, in English, as to what God actually and originally said

These 6 parameters are what I think define King James Only.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

Way back when James White was writing his book, I "chatted" with him on a pre-Internet message relay system called Fidonet. At the time, I was newly "converted" to the "KJVO" position and considered the term a smear. White certainly intended it as a smear when he used it.

Anyway, I no longer care if the term was originally meant as a pejorative. Most KJB believers I know are happy to call themselves "King James Only" now. It is, for me, accurate enough.

Although I believe God preserved his words in the original Hebrew and Greek (the Masoretic and the TR), the evidence is plain that there does not exist a single correct and completely collated presentation of God's word in those languages. (That's what Scrivener was trying to create with his edition of the TR.)

If we believe that the KJV translators did a completely accurate job translating God's word and selecting the correct source readings, then it logically follows that we have no true need for the "originals" any more.

It has been said that some people believe that the KJV can be used to "correct the Greek" (TR). I think the TR-only scholars who laugh at this are missing the point -- since we do not have the exact TR text that the KJV translators used as their basis for translation, and yet we have faith that the KJV is 100% correct, we can in fact use it to "correct" any particular edition of the TR. The KJV is a variant of the TR and if we accept it as authoritative, it can be used to select TR readings. However, while Scrivener's attempt at creating a KJV-based-TR is laudable, it did not yield a "perfect TR," so we are left concluding that the knowledge required to purely do so simply does not exist right now. And why should it? God has his pure English Bible; nobody speaks the "Biblical original languages" any more, so what's the need?

Very well said, Diligent! That a Bible believer can use the KJV to correct the "originals" (so-called, for no true "original" exists anymore) is not an "extreme" position after all. Thank you very much!

Amen, Diligent and Biblestudent!

Now, some comments on what Truth4Today wrote.

This is strictly true, despite some continuation of the Geneva Version for a few years among some, and clamour from a more extreme minority for longer; and despite the rejection of Hugh Broughton, the King James Bible was indeed accepted without controversy, and it superseded — indeed was seen to be superior to — any other English version.

It was not merely the Westminster Confession (which is a sectarian statement), but the 39 Articles of the Anglicans, and doctrines of other denominations since accepted the Scripture as presently true, plainly meaning in the English tongue.

As for Wikipedia, that is somewhat dubious, in that it may be altered at any moment, and is not actually a tangible scholarly authority.

The issue is not to the origin of the name “King James Only”, or as if that doctrine only existed while there was a name for it, rather, it was broadly an idea of the Christian Church since 1611. This may be shown to be the case, despite a few figures from time to time challenging that, especially with more vehemence from the middle portion of the 1800s.

As for James White, his categorisations should be held with little credence. He deliberately misrepresents King James Bible adherents, and gives no place for the pure KJBO view. This man does not seem to have an honest agenda.

or, White confuses/fogs the term considerably

In reality, “TRO” cannot be “KJBO” because while the TRO accepts the KJB in English, they are open to the original languages and other translations, and are open to the possibility of changes/alterations to the King James Bible.

This is what appears to be the textual positions of people who at least may prefer the use of the King James Bible:

1. TRADITIONAL TEXT. This view is that the Eastern Orthodox manuscripts/Byzantine Family are the best, and whatever is in majority. The King James Bible is the best English Bible based on these. The King James Bible is open to revision in its underlying texts, as was done with the New King James Version. Some may advocate for a New Geneva Version. A lot of changes can be made in the translation. (They believe that no translation is perfect.) These folk reject all other KJB positions, and are among the strongest anti-KJBO people. They may also have some respect for the TROs, but call others heretics. “The authority is in the majority of Greek manuscripts.”

2. TEXTUS RECEPTUS. This view is that the formation of the accepted text that was improved upon through the Reformation, as based upon the widest amount of evidence, including even the Vulgate, but mainly the Byzantine Family, is the best, most especially because God used these by His providence in the getting the Gospel into many languages from Reformation. Principle of all such translations is the King James Bible. They therefore promote any TR translation, even if made from the KJB. They also would uphold the Greek text aligned to the KJB, and have laid aside Lloyd’s TR for Scrivener’s or Berry’s. While they might hold that the underlying texts of the KJB should not be altered, they will still think that the KJB has the possibility for improvements, either in translations, or more often, in updating the old fashioned language. (They do not accept the idea of perfect translation, though recognise that God must be able to use people to make good ones.) These TRO folk may be witnessed to attack both the NKJV and KJBOs. “The authority is in the underlying languages.”

3. ENGLISH RECEIVED TEXT. This view is that the English Bible, namely, the King James Bible is the best and, in fact, perfect text being gathered from the TR sources, and as an independent variety of the TR, is the final form of the text. Therefore, the text in English is matching exactly the words, but for the language, to the autographs. Moreover, the translation is exact, sense for sense, without addition, omission, alteration or substitution. While the KJB is not the only form of the English Scripture, or the only Bible in the world, it is, through various factors and providential signals, beginning to be regarded as the only Bible/Scripture Authority to be used. This means that the King James Bible will, if the logic is followed, have to be viewed in a fixed form, rather than in a continual perpetuation of editions with spelling differences or other even slight variations. However, because the Bible existed before 1611, there can never be the extreme of saying that it is the only Bible, or only edition, rather, that God has providentially brought it about so that in practice (i.e. in current use of the faithful) it is the only Bible. Moreover, if it is linked to true Christianity, at some point the Church using the King James Bible is going to be actually the true Church as opposed to the apostates who do not. “The authority is in the Authorized King James Bible.”

In other words, future “King James Bible only” would be prescriptive of the true Church, (a true Christian could be judged of his trueness on account of it as part of true doctrine), whereas today it is only descriptive (there are as yet true Christians who are not using the King James Bible exclusively). The problem is that most people who have made it prescriptive up to today have held to various positions on the matter which are extreme or illogical. There needs to be a temperate and reasoned move to promoting the prescription position. Foremost in this is (as based on numerous Scriptures themselves:
1. Recognising the KJB as the providentially appointed final text in the Church.
2. Recognising the KJB as a perfect translation in the global language, so that it is viewed as God’s exact message to the world.
3. Recognising the KJB has been presented in a final exact pure edition, accurate throughout, with the proper standard of spelling and Biblical English, without typographical error, without variation and without any other flaw to the jot and tittle.

I'm glad to see this spelled out. I'm clearly a CLASS TWO KJB-onlier. But with a few little differences.

I consider a translation from the Textus Receptus into any language that's done well by the right people to be as good as inspired. I consider "the right people" to be born-again Bible believers who do their work with prayer, and in the fear of God, and under some kind of general church authority. Translation is an art that must be done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don't think a translation's inspiration or authenticity depends on particular wording, simply because the target language changes over time, and I wouldn't use the term "altered" for this, because as long as the modernized word expresses for modern people what the old word did for the earlier generation I consider them equivalent so that the translation maintains its integrity and perfection through such changes.

So I'd word the following a bit differently:

Yes.

I'd say God preserves His word absolutely reliably through any translation that has been done from the right texts (the TR) by the right people in the right spirit, and that certainly describes the KJB.

I'd state this differently. You can never get a word-for-word equivalence between two different languages but you can get "100%" equivalence in meaning so that it's not merely "valid" but "perfect."

I would call the KJB "perfect" not just "very good" because the kinds of "alterations" that are necessary from time to time do not or should not change the substance (meaning) of the text, OR even the style of it -- again, if done right by the right people. Changes should be as minimal as possible. We don't need to change the thees and thous and they are necessary to the meaning, though I don't see a reason to retain the -eth endings. Beyond that, there are some, not many, archaic words that need to be updated. Again, in the right spirit by the right people, in the fear of God and changing as little as necessary in the text.

I'm happy to call the KJB "perfect" even with the need for minimal updating from time to time, and the other English versions are unacceptable because they are based on the wrong texts and have been done by the wrong people in the wrong spirit.

The Word of God MUST be translated into other languages, and MUST be done from the TR, and the KJB should be consulted as the most excellent model.

Why are we using names that KJV critics, Bible Correctors and assorted Alexandrian and Nicolaitan 'goons' use to attack malign and castigate Bible Believers!!!!!
These terms are used much in the same way as 'Ruckmanite' is bandied about to shame Bible Believers into silence and withdraw from the field of Battle. :rolleyes:

Using the K.I.S.S. Principle the only name I wish to be associated with is BIBLE BELIEVER.. period. I refuse any other name that the 'brethren' wish to apply...

By Bible Believer I mean someone who believes..

1. God kept His promise to preserve His Inspired word Psalms 12:6-7; Prov. 30:5-6 etc..

2. That Inspired Preserved Word is found in the English Authorised King James Version 1611 for English speaking people.

3. That the AV KJV 1611 not only contains the Word of God but the very words of God as He intends us to have believe and use.

4. That the AV KJV 1611 is the Sole & Final Authority for Bible Believers in all matters of Faith and Practice.

5. That the AV KJV 1611 follows both Hebrew/Greek sentence structure in English, hence no need to learn those languages to understand the 'Book'.

6. That the AV KJV 1611 is the Seventh and Final purified Bible for all time that God has demonstrated in History as to be what it says it is!! So much so it is teh standard by which all other per-versions measure themselves.

7. That God Supernatural oversaw the making of the AV KJV 1611 in the selection and scholarship of the Translators. Never before or since has such Scholarship been gathered.

I guess by now some folks are stripping gears and having all kinds of fits and tantrums, but it is the Bible that I was saved through, I Preach Teach & Believe. It is Gods Sword that needs to be USED rather than defended!!! Heb.4:12 :cool:

I think that sums it up perfectly.

I'm a Bible Believer!!
 

Not me!! I agree, you have summed it up nicely. I like it kept simple and especially since I can be stupid at times. K.I.S.S.!! I like that!

OK, from now on call me a Bible Believer. I don't have to worry about whether I am just a KJVO or a pure KJVO. :)

chaplainles http://av1611.com/forums/styles/redc...er_offline.gif > Post #12

Amen to everything you have said brother. The "pseudo-intellectuals" amongst us complicate things. (Too much "schooling" perhaps?).

It boils down to: Do we have God's word in the world or don't we? If someone doesn't know where it is they had better look for it. And if they are fortunate to find it they had better believe it. And if they believe it they had better obey it and follow it.

Do all of these "gnat-strainers" have a FINAL AUTHORITY which dictates to them all that they are to believe? (I strongly doubt it!) Or do they construct and "set up" "multiple authorities" (TR, Traditional Text, Majority Text, Strong's, all the "Lexicons", a church, a school, a man - or men, etc., etc., etc.) so that they can "CHOOSE" between them (their "authorities") as to which they are going to follow and obey.

Keep em coming brother - it is sometimes wearisome dealing with all of the "flotsam" and "jetsam" spewing forth from the "brethren". :rolleyes:

I'm wondering just how many you are calling gnat strainers today. In Christian love I ask you as well to search your heart to make sure that you are not spewing forth to your brethren.

What I am seeing from some of those you call gnat strainers is that they are doing their best to back up their statements in a respectful way. We should be able to discuss differences respectfully. disagreeing with someone is not spewing as long as we can be respectful. :(

Right On!
 

Amen sister! It is so refreshing to read post’s from those who possess a sound mind and a commonsense eye of understanding. You have far more decrement that you give yourself.


__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

~Where I Stand, It Is Windy~
 

As of yet, I have not revealed where in particular, I stand within the parameters I have defined. The reasons for this are simple: 1.) My view is irrelevant to the issue just as long as I am within the parameters; 2.) Everyone must decide for themselves where within the parameters they are going to stand, my position should not influence anyone; 3.) The issue of using the KJV as the standard Bible (i.e. the parameters as a whole) is really what is at stake, not the trifles of those who do use it as the standard Bible (i.e. each element within the parameters {who is really straining at gnats?}).

You, must understand that what is important to me is the position of the King James Only as a whole. Yes, I could easily argue the position of Gale Riplinger as revealed in her books New Age Bible Versions; In Awe Of They Word; Which Bible Is God’s Word?; and The Language Of The King James Bible. Sure I could just as easily delineate Samuel C. Gipp’s position as revealed in his books An Understandable History of the Bible ; and The Answer Book . No doubt I could even put forth the basics of Peter S. Ruckman’s position (The Christian’s Handbook Of Biblical Scholarship pp. 37-38):
Of course, Ruckman could be JOKING here, I can’t really tell… :D

I could present the positions of a hundred men. But what does all that mean? Really, it means very little. What is important is how we define what a King James Only is. What are the confines in which it rest. The US has one Army, but many facets to that Army. I should know for I joined in 1999, served over in Iraq in Iraqi Freedom II; and just ETS back in September of last year. Defining what King James Only is, is the real issue today!

However, there are some of you who are eager to know where I stand. Tonight is your lucky night, because, I feel in the mood to tell you. Please permit me to quote something I have written in regard to my take on this issue:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Indispensable Book

The word “indispensable” expresses the idea that what ever is being spoken of is not subject to being set aside or neglected. It is absolutely necessary or requisite, just as air is necessary for one to live. The necessity and indispensability of the Bible is perfectly emphasized by our Lord when He said, “...man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Luke 4:4; recorded in Matt. 4:4 also). He was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 which underscores man’s need for the Word in order to live. Man cannot truly live without the very word, and every word at that, of God. Job illustrates the recognition of this need, “Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary [food].” (Job. 23:12). We are told that the Word is more precious than gold and that it is sweeter than honey (Ps. 19:9-10; 119:103, 127). Moreover, the testimony of Scripture is that the Bible is sufficient for salvation (Ps. 19:7; Rom. 1:16), without which there is no salvation (1Pet. 1:23; Rom. 10:13-17). It is for these reasons and more that we consider God’s word as indispensable.

Since, God breathed and authored the Bible and because He is not a man that He should lie (Num. 23:19) nor can He lie (Titus 1:2), then the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Hence, the Bible is historically, scientifically and spiritually true and accurate (Ps. 119:160; John 7:17). This being the case, we believe the Bible is the only authority in all matters of faith, life, practice, and anything else it may touch thereupon for the believer. It is indispensable, hence, it is to be believed (John 2:22), received (1Thess. 1:6; 2:13; James 1:21), read (Deut. 17:18-19; Rev. 1:2), spoken (Ps. 119:46, 172), taught (Deut. 6:7-8), preached (2Tim. 4:2), sung (Ps. 119:54; Colo. 3:16), loved (Ps. 119:127), obeyed (Deut. 11:27; 29:9 Luke 8:21; 11:28; James 1:22-25), and meditated on (Josh 1:8; Ps. 1:2; 119:148) as the Word of God.

I believe that the Traditional Hebrew Messoretic Old Testament and the Traditional Greek Textus Receptus New Testament text to be the providently preserved word of God faithfully handed down from the first through the ages which has been providently kept intact in the Biblical English of the King James Authorized Bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There, you have my position dealing with the King James Only. To further clarify, I do not think that the English can correct the Greek, nor do I hold to the idea that the Greek can correct the English. I DO hold to the idea that the English of the King James Authorized Bible is an accurate, faithful, and correct reproduction of God sanctioned Greek and Hebrew texts so that we can say that it is translationally without error.

At this point I want to thank everyone’s input; including those who hate… oops I mean who dislike me. :D

For my next post ladies and gentlemen I shall post why I think their should be a need for a standard.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

But that is not saying that the translation is full or complete in English, that is, that the whole and all the meaning of the original words are exactly and fully presenting the full sense in the English.

"But thou hast fully known my doctrine" (2 Tim 3:10a). "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear" (2 Tim. 4:17a). This requires that the full translation occur so that we (all Gentiles) may fully know the doctrine in English. Are the Gentiles going to hear only the full truth today if they go to the Greek? Or if it is yet being unlocked and revealed from the Greek? Is it not rather that God has providentially supplied and sanctioned the English Bible to take out from the scattered Greek and Hebrew one good Bible for all?

Is the King James Bible perfect and complete and without error? Do you believe there is something we can "gain" from the Greek and Hebrew that isn't evident in the KJB? I'm curious, because you and quite a few people seem to stop short of attributing the full and complete manifestation of Scripture to the King James Bible. Just wondering.

I Quote Ruckman At Will, And I Always Will
 

Like I said, it really does not matter, the more important thing is defining and defending the parameters of King James Only. Although, I thought I was manifestly clear in what I said. Be that as it may, I am in a good mood tonight and will acquiesce to your request.

In the words of Peter S. Ruckman (The Christian’s Handbook Of Biblical Scholarship p.460):

Interpretation: if “the Greek” contradicts the King James Authorized Bible, you have the wrong Greek. :D

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

I certainly agree the only valid use for the Greek is as a secondary and confirming witness to the English. However, it is an important issue as to the exact sense, that is, the full scope of God's message being present in English. By this I mean that by translation etc., we now (since 1611) have the full, exact and express message of God in English, which is fully and utterly in English. And reading the King James Bible now is as if God spoke English throughout the inspiration of the Scripture, for the manifest infallibility of it in English.

Burgon said concerning the translators, "When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English."

The argument is not whether or not the Scripture in English is sufficient for salvation, because very born again believer really will have to admit that. The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".

After that is settled, one more thing needs to be addressed, namely, has God supplied a pure form of the King James Bible, free from printing errors and with standard spellings? I think that He has. While God has blessed various editions of the King James Bible, He has blessed one particular line, and brought it into a kind of acknowledgment that makes it the chosen form.

I would encourage everyone to have a degree of tolerance when defining the KJBO position. As we can all see, there is not a clear dividing line. In my own life, I have never had the slightest sense that there was any Bible but the KJB. In practice and belief I have always rejected any other English version as useful for reading or study. However, in the past, I had some thought that the knowledge of the original languages would help me to better understand the meaning. At that time I would have considered myself King James Only in the simplest meaning or the phrase.

The issue grew through the 80's and 90's, when many new versions were being produced, and I began to look at the question of the translation being equal to the original more. More questions then began to surface. With each new question, the decision I made redefined my understanding of KJBO. At this time, the identification has taken on a wide range of meanings, as has been acknowledged by others here.

What I have now found to be best in my determination of who is and who is not KJBO (in my opinion) deals more with the boundaries than with the listing of what one believes. What does one NOT believe about the KJB is to me more definitive than what one believes. An example would be: A person says that he believes that the KJB is completely accurate. Another says that the KJB does not have any errors or mistakes. Are these two making the identical statement?

Matthew said:
Amen! It could not be more simply worded!

Brother Tim and Bibleprotector are insisting on some sort of specificity in the following statements that distinguishes between attitudes toward the KJB that I've noticed in the discussion all along but don't accept:

To my mind they are the identical statement.

I have no problem agreeing with this statement even though I believe the KJB should be updated from time to time, while I gather that others think updating is a form of "correction" or "alteration." To my mind properly-done updating is not correction, it's not change, it does not in any way undermine "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added."

I have read of a person who says something like the King James Bible is completely accurate, but then goes on to explain how that while the translation is accurate, there is always the possibility of further meanings in the original languages, because, according to this person, it is not possible to take over a 100% from one language to another. This person denies that the English Bible is inerrant, that is, without error.

Therefore, these are not the same statement. The one who says the King James Bible is without any error is the one who is believing consistently. The one who just thinks it is completely accurate is a step short.

Of course, I do believe the KJB is completely accurate, but I also believe it is without error. It is exactly true, with no error even in one jot or tittle.

I also believe this, and I do not think that properly-done updating of the English in any way compromises this statement. I think clinging to the archaic words is a form of superstition. (There are some that are necessary to the sense, but others aren't). It is sheer superstition to hold that "abideth" is perfect but "abides" is not.

If the text and translation are "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added" then the text and translation cannot be altered.

Having said that, I will now show that changing one jot or one tittle is a change of the Word of God.

Every word has meaning. Every word, its sounding, its placed in the sentence, is exact, is perfect, proper, in its order. Yea, in the Pure Cambridge Edition, we may rely even on the very spellings, the punctuation, in short, in every whit whole.

Changing and altering even one letter, one sound, one word is going to alter these things (some to a greater degree than others):
1. The visual appearance.
2. The sound/rhythm.
3. The subtle associations of meanings, the impact upon the bowels (feeling).
4. The proper use of Biblical English.
5. The sense.
6. The truth.
7. Faith in something which was received as fixed, certain and sure.

Certainly “rasor” to “razor” is slight (the sense changeth not), “thinketh” to “thinks” is not slight, and something like “hewed” to “shown” is wild (New Cambridge Paragraph Edition).

“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation” (Psalm 95:10a) should never be made “For forty years I was grieved with that generation”.

Even a slight change, like one letter, is still a change. It may not be a change to the actual meaning, but it is a change nonetheless to the RECEIVED WORD as is now final. (There are lots of "differences" which may be discovered when comparing to 1611. Such things were needful and were occurring under the providential hand of the Lord. There is no way that any changes now can be God-led. The very desire for change now is really inspired by the spirit of error, because it is never going to accept that the state of the King James Bible as it now is, that is, its very presentation, is final. It will at least try and change spellings. But final is final. And that means no changes, not even of one letter.)

It seems like superstition to those who do not know how intricate and exact Bible English really is. Unless one accepts and sees that it is final, rather than have all sorts of thoughts as to its "old fashioned" (perhaps even "inappropriate") "obscurities", then one will not really be fixed in their heart as to the fixedness of the Bible as it is.

The truth is that updated language will not make the King James Bible more acceptable, certainly not more acceptable to God, and neither to the spirit of antichrist who wants more changes/confusion.

If it is God's Word, God's Spirit will give the understanding of it, even to the simple. It is not a stumblingblock to have a hard and dark Word, because the Spirit of Truth is present to bring illumination.

Even Edward Hills realised that if the King James Bible were "updated" for supposed changes in the language, the same update would be equally out of date when further supposed changes occurred. The reality is that there is a fixed, unaltering core English language which is always existing now throughout the world, which is always going to be conversent with the Bible English. Therefore, there is no reason to ever change the King James Bible as it now is.

Moreover, just as it has been shown that there are seven major English Bibles, so are there seven major editions of the King James Bible. This accords with the prophecy of Psalm 12, which shows that the Word would undergo a process of seven purifications. This has happened within the internal history of the King James Bible. We have the Pure Cambridge Edition. That is "very pure". There is no need, nor precedent for an eight working, because, God has been able to get it right already, despite darkness, deception and ignorance.

I'm perfectly fixed in my heart as to the fixedness of God's word. I believe that the refusal to accept necessary updatings is what is feeding the proliferation of the false versions and making the antichrist happy.

I agree. There is absolutely no reason to make such a change.

By what authority? Could you give few Scripture references perhaps?

If you allow "abideth" to "abides", you may as well allow (given time) anything.

Where does it stop? When does it stop?

The spirit of error wants changes, because it is against truth. Therefore, it logically follows that since we have truth, which is fixed, that is what the spirit of error is against. In other words, there cannot be a spirit of antichrist without the true form existing first. And there cannot be a desire for changes to the King James Bible unless there is some fixed present form first. So really, the spirit of error and the desire for changes are not attacking or altering nothing, but are coming against the idea that there is one final fixed presentation form of the pure truth manifest and extant right now in one language which is accessible to multitudes around the world.

Now we have it: Modern versions exist because the truth is resolute. Or, to be moveable is of God, but to change not is of antichrist. (See Proverbs 5:6 and Malachi 3:6.)

Moveability as to truth is of antichrist, but it is simple common sense to recognize that language is not fixed as truth is. To make a person an offender because of a word is a grave sin according to scripture.

Hardly. My criteria are Biblical. Born-again Holy Spirit led believers determine what changes are necessary.

Connie said:Connie, I think that I remember us covering this issue (seems like) eons ago.

Hopefully a simple point. Consider the current group of individuals who are on this board. Without naming names, I would hope that among the total are more than a few born-again Spirit-led believers. Hopefully, you agree. Now, we can't last a day without one or more fusses breaking out amongst us. Just how well do you think revising the Scriptures would go? :eek:

Good point, Bro Tim, sorry I don't remember our previous conversation about this so I'll probably be repeating myself. But at least theoretically I don't know why it couldn't go as well as the original translation of the KJB went with its many translators, because they'd all be people with the needed expertise in the languages and the requirements of translation. Nobody here has any such expertise in translation or language, even the English language, unless I've sadly missed that information. (But I have to admit that it would probably be hard to get the right people together today anyway because something in the . . . what, attitude? tone? seriousness? God-fearingness? . . . of Christian life seems to be different from the time of the KJB translators. I accept that we all have the Holy Spirit but even so there's a lack of seriousness about it somehow.)

This is exactly why it will not happen again. Jesus Christ came "in the fulness of time." (Gal. 4:4) Everything God does is on a timeline, known only to Him (Mk 13:32). The completion of the presentation of the Scriptures was also prepared and finished. To attempt to build on that cannot and will not be blessed of God. From purely a human prospective, it is impossible. Without the blessing of God, it is sin as well. Every attempt thus far has either failed or has been a diminishing of the truth. God is not in it. It should not be attempted.

That's nonsense. If that were true, then the proliferation of modern versions would 1. not be based on utterly false and corrupt manuscripts and 2. not be so prolific. We have "just one more" new translation every six months or a year. A lack of updates to the KJV is not to blame for itching ears and a spirit of error.

Just "WHO" was I addressing when I made this charge? Were there any NAMES MENTIONED? If I didn't name names or address my remarks to any one person on the Forum - WHY are you upset?

There are "Gnat Strainers" on this Forum - and I'm sure that for some of them my remarks "hit home", which they were meant to. But WHY would you take offense?

Your concept of Biblical Christianity and what a Christian man should or should not say has been influenced by our "Politically Correct" Culture. I, for one, refuse to "buy into" this "sissified" and "effeminate" concept of what a man (a Christian man) should be or what he should say.

WHY did you take offense? I can assure you here and now that those remarks were not meant for you, or directed towards you! WHY are you so "sensitive".

Christian MEN are not supposed to meet the standards set up for them by women (saved or lost) - We are supposed to live according to God's INSTRUCTIONS & STANDARDS! I am more concerned with WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE to the Lord, than "what is acceptable" to man. It's not just:

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

It's also:

Ephesians 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Do understand the "implications" of the above?

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Are you aware that we are living in that "Time"? This "time" that we live in could easily be called "The Age Of Apostasy" - There is only one other time in the history of the "church of God", where there has been such a falling away from the truth, and that was immediately after the Apostolic Age - when there were at least 80 or more cults and sects vying for the attention of Christians; and when there was a proliferation of "false" books & "false" bibles.

Timothy (and all men who are called of God - myself included) was CHARGED before God to not only be "gentle" with all men, but he was to "reprove" and "rebuke" them! And this is where Biblical DISCERNMENT comes (Knowing WHO to "reprove" or "rebuke" - Ephesians 5:11); and Biblical UNDERSTANDING (Knowing WHY they should (actually "must") be rebuked - Ephesians 5:13); and having the WISDOM to know WHO TO "reprove" or "rebuke" and WHEN to deliver the reproof or rebuke. - 1Timothy 4:1-4)

And what about:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If I don't "reprove" someone when they have it coming, I actually am failing to fulfil the duties and responsibilities that God has given me in order that I might be: perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

You see it's not just about "gentleness" & "meekness"; or about "doctrine" & "instruction" - there are times when we must "warn", "admonish", "reprove", and yes, even rebuke! After 50 years of dealing with "all kinds" of "Christians" I usually can "spot" a "SOPHIST" and "DESTRUCTIVE CRITIC" fairly quickly. and since I have learned over the years that there is nothing "Profitable" to be gained by trying to reason with them, I either "reprove" them or "rebuke" them - depending on the circumstances and then I "avoid them" (like the plague). Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (The idea being that it is better to deal with them "quickly", rather than have happen - what has occurred)

How about this:

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

Did T4T treat me in his Post #9 (an elder in a New Testament church) in a "scriptural" manner? I trow not! Then WHY are you defending him and criticizing me? Hmmm? :confused: We are told to "judge righteous judgment" - Is your judgment "righteous"?

And what about this verse:

1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

In the context this is referring to "elders", but if it's "good enough" to "rebuke" an elder "before all", it's "good enough" for all Christians. (And there are plenty of "witnesses" to this man's conduct.)

And then there is: {A "bishop" = An "elder" or a "pastor"}

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience isdefiled.
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Can you not see that, although it is real simple to get saved - living the Christian life according to the Scriptures is a whole lot more than "Milk & Honey" or "Chocolates & Roses". Living according to the Scriptures "costs", because it is contrary to everything that we embraced and absorbed before we were saved. We live in a Humanistic culture and this culture is so "perverse" that it is very difficult to overcome it - unless we live by faith according to the Scriptures, and it will still "cost".

Your "concept" about my behavior is not Biblical and if you would take the time to see how God's men have conducted themselves down through the ages (within the Bible & during the church age), you would quickly find that their conduct was nothing like the "girly men" in modern day "Christianity". Our God is not some "sissified" "effeminate" God and neither are His MEN. Don't make the mistake of judging me by today's Humanistic, Psychological, and Politically Correct standards.

And lastly what about:

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

I may at times be mistaken in my "discernment", "understanding" and "wisdom" when it comes to my judgment in these matters - and if I am, God will see to it that I am "chastened"; but I am not going to shrink from my duty to "warn"; "admonish"; and "REPROVE"; and, even when the occasion requires, "REBUKE" a "proud", "vain", and "offensive" person who hurls insults at a Christian without regard for What God's word has to say or even what common courtesy would require.

If you will notice: I have not treated you in the same way that I treated him, because I do not perceive that you are anything "like" him.

Respectfully submmited,

What I mean is that if a true updated King James had been done that people felt were more accessible, it would be chosen by more churches or at least more individuals. My hope is that the churches may yet wake up, or at least many more individuals, and I honestly do think that there is an unnecessary stubbornness on the KJB-only side that is contributing just as much as itching ears to the current situation -- a fleshly stubbornness, not a Spirit-led discernment. I hate to think of the millions who are being deceived into accepting the corrupt versions. It's not ALL itching ears, there are people who are simply being misled by their leaders -- leaders who usually preach good doctrine, in my opinion though probably not the strictest KJB-onlyers' opinion, and I honestly believe some of this situation is the fault of the latter.

Bro Tim may be right that it's simply impossible to get a true update in any case, but I find it hard to give up on it. I simply cannot regard language as the fixed thing you all do. There are many ways to say exactly the same thing in any language. I have plenty of reasons to want to see the KJB remain as close to the original as possible nevertheless, mainly that changes can be as much of a stumbling block as archaic language.

I'm in Class 3, commonly known as a Ruckmanite.

What makes you think that? Is that your intuition? They are obviously not satisfied with any of the modern versions -- they keep clamoring for a new one every year. What reason do you have for believing a "New New KJV" would be any different?

The fact is, people -- most Christians -- could not be bothered to actually care about the authority of God's word. They don't even trust their chosen, preferred modern versions to guide them in their faith. They heap to themselves evermore teachers and scholars to tell them how to get along with the world, when we are supposed to contend for the truth.

What makes you qualified to make such a judgment? And no, I'm not talking about your gender. What evidence do you have to support this charge you are making?

This is a very Chamberlain-esque line of reasoning.

I've been dealing with KJV detractors for a while now -- this website brings all sorts and some of the email I get is just unfathomable -- and I can tell you without any question that an "update" of the language of the KJV is not an issue. Period. There is a concerted effort to replace the authority of the Bible with the authority of men. That is why the KJV is being rejected. It's not because of a few "eths."

Why? Do you think God gave you a mission to advocate for a revision of his Bible? This is a serious question -- you are admitting this is your heart here. Is this desire of your heart from God or from your human heart? Do you know what the Bible says about our hearts?