Why King James Only?

[Jordan Kurecki]

Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?

 

I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.

 

I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).

 

on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.

 

What is your position and why do you hold to it?

[Ukulelemike]

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:

 

1: Ruckman-style, 'the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version.' I am not of this mind. 

 

2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.

 

Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.

 

As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.

 

The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.

 

That's a start for now.

[Miss Daisy]

I started reading KJV because it was only large print Bible I had. Then I started attending my IFB church and that's what they use. I admit I do have to check another version sometimes to figure out what they're saying at it is hard to understand sometimes.

 

I don't know what textual theories even are.

[Ukulelemike]

I started reading KJV because it was only large print Bible I had. Then I started attending my IFB church and that's what they use. I admit I do have to check another version sometimes to figure out what they're saying at it is hard to understand sometimes.

 

I don't know what textual theories even are.

The textual theories that Jordan refers to, are the standard arguments that bible 'scholars' and critics use: the oldest manuscript is the best, because its closest to the originals in time. Or that the Bible should be interpreted no differently than any other work of literature, meaning one can make it to be whatever they want it to be. 

[John81]

Many years ago, just as clear as could be, the Lord directed me to use the KJB. Thankfully I OBeyed and reading the KJB the Word was suddenly clear to me, memorization of the Word became almost easy, and my growth in the Word and in Christ excelled.

 

It wasn't until later I even learned of KJO, the history behind the many MVs, the basis and arguments of text sources, etc.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

The King James Bible is perfect for many reasons which I don't have time to get into. God promised to preserve his words. Modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, are always coming out with new versions which change words. The King James Bible has stood the test of time and doesn't lack important passages that the modern Bibles lack. Finally, the modern Bibles contain legitimate conflicts which are not in the King James Bible.

[John81]

The King James Bible is perfect for many reasons which I don't have time to get into. God promised to preserve his words. Modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, are always coming out with new versions which change words. The King James Bible has stood the test of time and doesn't lack important passages that the modern Bibles lack. Finally, the modern Bibles contain legitimate conflicts which are not in the King James Bible.

That "stood the test of time" is a very important factor and one that most KJB detractors have a difficult time trying to deal with. That's why they will most often ignore and steer clear of the 400 year track record of success only the KJB has and instead argue that the language is "archaic" and "nOBody can understand it".

 

Interesting to consider that young children used to learn to read using the KJB but today it's claimed neither high school or college graduates can understand the KJB. I would say that's an indictment against the education system, not the KJB.

 

I see now they are promoting the MEV as being the newest and best Bible today. That's the same thing they said previously about the ESV, NIV and so many others. How long before yet another MV is deemed necessary for the sake of publishers profits?

[Miss Daisy]

what does MEV stand for?

[John81]

what does MEV stand for?

Modern English Version

 

They are marketing it as an updated KJB. That sounds good, and the parts where that's all they did was to update the spelling or wording is fine, but they did more than that.

[Calvary]

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:

 

1: Ruckman-style, "the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version. I am not of this mind. 

 

2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.

 

Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.

 

As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.

 

The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.

 

That's a start for now.

 

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

[Ukulelemike]

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

“A little English will clear up the OBscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147)

 

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

 

"We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or  to demonstrate thebelief superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew”  (Peter Ruckman,  PrOBlem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).“

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

 

Sorry, should have used ' ' instead-I was more referring to the general theory, not a specific quote-my error, and I withdraw the quotes.

BY the way, ever read the Ruckman book, "Black is Beautiful"? Interesting book, all about Ruckman's beliefs concerning UFO's and such things.

[Steve Schwenke]

I have to chime in here:

 

To answer the OP:

I am KJV because the Bible demands it.  The Bible promises a perfectly preserved text.  When we study what the Scriptures say about themselves, the only Bible that matches all of the combined criteria is the KJV - none of the other versions come close.  Not even the TR qualifies.

 

Mike - I have a lot of respect for you, and appreciate your insight, wisdom, and hold you in high regard.  However, you are wrong about Dr. Ruckman. 

You have assembled a few quotes, taken out of context.  Can you even begin to explain anything he meant with the quotes you provided?

 

I have to ask because I was there - I attend Dr. Ruckman's school, and graduated in 1996.  I have read the vast majority of what he has written, and listened to countless hours of his teaching and preaching.  I know what he said, and I know what he MEANT when he said it.  Do you?  Or are you simply drawing off what somebody else wrote about him second and third hand?  Just curious.

 

No heat here....just curious.

 

In Christ,

[Miss Daisy]

what is his theory of UFO's?

[Steve Schwenke]

Miss Daisy, I don't want to get sidetracked here.  I am addressing the KJV issue.  Dr. Ruckman is a man after all, just like all of the rest of them, and he has his faults and failures, just like everyone else.

 

My issue here is that people are constantly misquoting him and falsely accusing him of a position he does not hold by taking his comments out of context, and assigning a meaning to them he does not intend.  Anyone who has read his books in full would understand that.  And anyone who posts quotes like these above has done one of two things:

 

1.  Copied a quote from someone else without checking into it, or,

2.  Purposefully maligned him for some weird reason.

 

So UFO's are not germane to the discussion.  It is merely a "guilt by association" tactic meant to discredit the man.

[Miss Daisy]

I don't know who the guy is. I'll have to look him up. But if he does hold to some weird view as a Christian about UFO's as a popular Christian who influences other christians, they yes it can be "germane" to the discussion about someone.

[Calvary]

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

 

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

 

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

 

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

 

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

 

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

 

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

[jebarr]

Bro Sam Gipp has a great website where he has scripted videos leading a young man to "why we should use the KJV"  It is at http://bigdealKJv.com/

 

It answered a lot of questions I had and helped me understand its importance and how other versions are incorrectly translated or downright leave verses out.

[DaveW]

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

I make no comment to the information you include here - I am not interested in taking part in the discussion - but the attack against Bro Matt and the tone towards Mike is completely out of line.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

 

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

 

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

 

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

 

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

 

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

 

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

 

My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

 

It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

 

 

In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have to chime in here:

 

To answer the OP:

I am KJV because the Bible demands it.  The Bible promises a perfectly preserved text.  When we study what the Scriptures say about themselves, the only Bible that matches all of the combined criteria is the KJV - none of the other versions come close.  Not even the TR qualifies.

 

 

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

If as you say God has promised to give us a perfect preserved word, why does it have to be in english?

 

What about Russian? to my knowledge the only Russian Bible translation is from a Critical text, They do not have anything in their language that is perfect, has God failed them or lied to them? If you are willing to admit that God would leave them without a perfect bible, why do we English speaking people think God owes us a perfect english translation? on what basis do we have to say the King James is better than the Geneva, the Bishops, or even the Wycliffe Bible... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

 

Some honest questions that I never find good answers to.

 

Again i am playing devils advocate, I do hold to a King James only position for English.