Now, About Those Differences, Part Twenty Three

The entire “Now About Those Differences” series is available here.

Sinister et Dexter

The best and most accurate body of manuscripts underlying the New Testament is the Textus Receptus. This then supports the King James Version for which I unashamedly stand and from which I exclusively study and preach.

—Evangelist Dwight Smith

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use.

—Temple Baptist Church and Crown College, Knoxville, Tennessee

At first glance, the present essay will appear to be a digression from the conversation about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals—and a lengthy digression at that. It is not. It is rather an attempt at recognizing that, when the principles of Christian fellowship and separation are applied consistently, they affect our relationship with professing fundamentalists as well as our relationship with other evangelicals. To illustrate this point, let me begin with a personal anecdote.

Not long ago, a reader of this publication sent the following question, signing himself as Richard V. Clearwaters: “I preached my entire ministry from the KJV. Was that wrong, outmoded, or ineffective? You seem to loathe anyone who does preach from this Bible and won’t preach from another? [sic]” Naturally, the author of these words was not R. V. Clearwaters, but the question was meant seriously.

This kind of query always leaves me nonplussed—not because of the pseudepigraphy, but because of the assumption behind the question. It assumes that a critique of King James Onlyism constitutes a critique of the King James Version. To question the legitimacy of King James Only convictions or tactics is somehow to attack the King James Bible and all who use it. On occasion, correspondents have informed me that my critique of their position identifies me as a member of the “Alexandrian cult,” which is supposed to be a secret society going back to Patristic times. One even said that he had my number, “and it’s 666.”

Objecting to the misuse of a thing, however, is not the same as objecting to the thing itself. I dislike the idea of hearing Bach’s Goldberg Variations played by kazoo, not because I dislike Bach, but because I do not wish to see Bach debased. By the same token, my objection is not to the King James Version, but to those who make false claims about it. This distinction seems so obvious that I have trouble taking critics seriously when they cannot seem to grasp it.

In the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should state that I am one of those misfits who still prefers to use a King James. Given a choice, it is what I will preach from (and since I am almost always given a choice, it is almost always what I use). It is the English text that I employ in my seminary teaching. It is the Bible that I have committed to memory and the Bible that I quote. Never in my life have I raised any objection to reading or using the King James Version.

Let me go further. I confess the King James Version to be the Word of God. It is Holy Scripture. I hold it to be authoritative. When I read it (as I do each day), God holds me responsible to obey what I read.

Some might believe that my attitude displays too much deference or reverence toward what is, after all, a translation of Scriptures that were originally written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Can a translation carry that kind of authority? On this point, I agree with the King James translators themselves.

[W]e do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

Since I highly esteem the King James Version of the Bible, then what is my disagreement with the King James Only movement? Between us lie two bones of contention, two questions that must be answered. The first is, how do we regard other versions of the Bible? The second is, does the use of the King James fall under the category of personal preference or under the category of doctrine?

To illustrate the differences, I have included two quotations at the beginning of this essay. The first is from the doctrinal statement of a well-respected itinerant preacher. The second is from the doctrinal statement of a prominent, church-based, independent Baptist college.

Both statements come out in the same place. Both are willing to recognize and employ only the King James Version as the Word of God in the English language. The preacher prides himself that the King James Version is the only Bible that he will use, not only to preach, but to study. If someone places a New International Version in his hand, he will not study it. If a church asks that he respect their decision to use the New American Standard in their services, he will not do it. He does not want to study God’s Word if it is not the King James Version.

The second statement is even more emphatic. The King James Version is the only English version that the college is willing to accept and use. They do not accept the American Standard Version of 1901. They do not accept the New American Standard. They do not accept the New International Version. They will not accept the English Standard Version. As far as this school is concerned, only the King James Version is the Word of God in English.

Given the stated attitude of these sources toward modern translations, two observations are in order. The first is that their position does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism. Speaking of mainstream fundamentalists, the real Richard V. Clearwaters wrote the following in The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise.

Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits….We know of no Fundamentalists…that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the main stream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.

My second observation is that the attitude displayed by the aforementioned preacher and college is genuinely contemptuous of the Word of God. If I were to declare that the King James Version was not the Word of God, then King James Only advocates would quickly and rightly excoriate me for my contempt of Scripture—regardless of my attitude toward other versions. Yet they themselves refuse to acknowledge the American Standard Version (et al.) as the Word of God.

Read again what the King James translators wrote to their readers. Translations may differ in grace or fitness of expression, but even a “mean” translation must be regarded as God’s Word. A person who despises the King James has shown contempt for God’s Word. By the same token, a person who despises the NASV or the NIV has shown contempt for God’s Word.

What is more, this contemptuous attitude toward the Word of God is not held merely as a personal preference. Rather, it is affirmed as a matter of doctrine—indeed, of vital doctrine. These King James Only advocates do not simply agree to disagree.

Look again at the quotations at the beginning of this essay. These citations are not drawn from position papers or editorials. They are taken from doctrinal statements.

The point of a doctrinal statement is not to articulate the entire system of faith. No one tries to include every belief in a doctrinal statement. When we write doctrinal statements, we aim to include only our most characteristic and important beliefs.

As a matter of doctrine, the itinerant preacher refuses to study any translation of the Bible except the King James. As a matter of doctrine, the college accepts and uses only the King James Bible. For these individuals, rejecting other versions of the Word of God is so important that they feel compelled to include their rejection in their creedal affirmations.

Such attitudes are hardly rare. In a series of videos released during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Pensacola Christian College (PCC) accused several fundamentalist institutions of sinful hypocrisy for not following a King James Only position. PCC has never repented of these public attacks. At West Coast Baptist College, graduating seniors do not receive their diplomas until they publicly stand to affirm that “God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people,” and agree that if they ever abandon this belief, they “should return [their] diploma and relinquish all rights, privileges, and honors that are accompanied with it.”

Extreme as these pronouncements are, evangelists such as Smith and colleges such as Crown, Pensacola, and West Coast actually represent the very moderate side of the King James Only movement. I have seen others cast the New American Standard Version to the ground. I have heard them denounce the New International Version as a “perversion.” More vitriolic King James Only advocates are even willing to attack the more moderate expressions of their own movement. For example, author William P. Grady has blasted Crown College and its president, Clarence Sexton, charging that school with apostasy (incidentally, Grady’s books—especially Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible—are indispensable reading for those who wish to understand the mindset and sensibilities of the King James Only movement).

Sadly, these people are attempting to create a new fundamentalism on the basis of a new fundamental. They have set themselves up as judges over the Word of God, determining for hundreds and thousands of Christians what will and what will not be recognized as Scripture. Alongside the gospel, they have introduced loyalty to the King James Version as a test of Christian fellowship.

How are these observations relevant to the relationship between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals? To answer this question, we must remember a bit of history.

American evangelicalism broke with fundamentalism when people like Harold John Ockenga, Edward John Carnell, and Billy Graham created a new evangelicalism. The error of neoevangelicalism was serious. New evangelicals rejected the fundamentalist insistence that the fundamentals of the gospel constitute the boundary of Christian fellowship. Fundamentalists tried to separate from apostates, but neoevangelicals tolerated apostates in their organizations, sought to cooperate with apostates in the Lord’s work, and tried to infiltrate enterprises that were controlled by apostates.

The error of the King James Only movement is opposite but equal to the error of the new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals wanted to remove the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. The King James Only movement wishes to add to the fundamentals (i.e., the gospel) as the boundary of Christian fellowship. Neoevangelicalism could be called “sub-fundamentalist,” while the King James Only movement is hyper-fundamentalist.

Of course, the King James Only movement is only one species of hyper-fundamentalism. Hyper-fundamentalism may revolve around personal and institutional loyalties, idiosyncratic agendas, absurd ethical standards, or the elevation of incidental doctrines and practices. The thing that characterizes all versions of hyper-fundamentalism is the insistence upon draconian reactions for relatively pedestrian—or even imaginary—offenses.

Hyper-fundamentalism and the new evangelicalism are mirror images of each other. The old neoevangelicalsim damaged the gospel, not by denying it, but by attacking its role as a demarcator between Christianity and apostasy. The hyper-fundamentalist does the same kind of damage by adding something else alongside the gospel. If anything, King James Onlyism is worse, for it shows contempt for the Word of God. It attacks the heart of Christianity by sitting in judgment over its source of authority.

Neoevangelicalism and hyper-fundamentalism are equal errors. Whatever we should have done in response to the new evangelicals is the same thing that we should do now in response to hyper-fundamentalists. Historic, mainstream, biblical fundamentalism has no more in common with Pensacola, Crown, and West Coast than it had with Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham.

Incidentally, no one should infer from this discussion that I think every King James Only advocate is hypocritical or defiant toward God. Nor should anyone assume that God cannot use King James Only churches, preachers, and schools. In His grace, He can and does. And of course, these same caveats should be applied to neoevangelicals: they were not necessarily insincere or defiant toward God, and God did work through them.

Furthermore, not all fundamentalists are hyper-fundamentalists, any more than all evangelicals are (or were) neoevangelicals. Several mediating positions exist. Historic, mainstream fundamentalism has been one of those mediating positions. Conservative evangelicalism is another.

In my opinion, fundamentalists are biblically obligated to separate from brethren who practice the neoevangelical philosophy. In the same way, and for much the same reasons, we are also obligated to separate from hyper-fundamentalists. We should not separate from either group as if they are apostates or enemies. Nevertheless, our ability to work with them is limited by their errors.

Conservative evangelicals do not want to be recognized as fundamentalists, and they do not belong in that category. At the same time, they are not guilty of the more serious errors that plagued the new evangelicalism. Unless separation is an all-or-nothing matter (and in the case of separation from Christians it is not), then we should recognize a greater degree of commonality and fellowship with conservative evangelicals than we could with neoevangelicals—or with hyper-fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists of the main stream do have more in common with conservative evangelicals than they have in common with hyper-fundamentalists. In particular, we have more in common with biblically responsible conservative evangelicals than we do with the captains of the King James Only movement. If we believe in separation, we ought to be separating from hyper-fundamentalists more quickly and more publicly than we do from conservative evangelicals.

How do these relationships work out in real life? For the final essay of this series, I would like to deal with two personal examples. The first was an occasion when I was invited to share a platform with a hyper-fundamentalist. The second was an occasion when I was invited to speak with a conservative evangelical. I plan to compare my handling of these situations to the way that other fundamentalists have responded in similar circumstances. While my response to these situations is certainly subject to critique, these episodes offer good, existential case studies of the effort to apply biblical principles to fellowship and separation.

Advent, 1
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)

‘Come,’ Thou dost say to Angels,
To blessed Spirits, ‘Come’:
‘Come,’ to the lambs of Thine own flock,
Thy little ones, ‘Come home.’

‘Come,’ from the many-mansioned house
The gracious word is sent;
‘Come,’ from the ivory palaces
Unto the Penitent.

O Lord, restore us deaf and blind,
Unclose our lips though dumb:
Then say to us, ‘I will come with speed,’
And we will answer, ‘Come.’

[node:bio/kevin-t-bauder body]

28196 reads

There are 202 Comments

James K's picture

1 John 2:23 KJV
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 John 2:23 NASB
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

What was it the italics meant again in the KJV? Oh yeah, they are there to help clarify what the text means in english when the "traditional text" doesn't have words for it. Funny thing though about half a verse being in italics. So even the KJV translators went beyond the "traditional text" to translate a verse. I don't expect some of you to actually have an answer for that. I know you have faith in yourselves that you made the right choice.

Monte, these quotes are yours.

Quote:
The idea that God has providentially preserved His word is NOT non-cessationism.

I didn't see anyone saying otherwise. Maybe I missed a post or something that said this. This seems to just be a red herring.

Quote:
I happen to believe it is preserved in the texts used consistently throughout church history--you know, those texts that all Christians believed in prior to the late 1800's.

You speak of it as a singular text that has been used. There is no singular text that has been used for 1900 years. All we have are fragments. All Erasmus had was fragments. Everyone involved in any of these editions or versions we speak of used textual criticism. Have you forgotten the dark ages, when the scriptures were chained? We don't know what the worldwide actual church was using during that time. We don't have their Bible. Even if you claim it was the Byzantine text type that was superior, many of the fragments date very late. I don't have a problem with the Byzantine text type. I have a problem with the persistent misinformation.

Quote:
My faith is in the Bible, the traditional texts of Scripture.

You just make the claim then go against it. You do not have any passage from scripture that says exactly where or how God would preserve his word. You have to go outside the Bible to make your argument. So then your faith is in how man has preserved it? Whether your faith is in yourself or in man it isn't clear. That it isn't is God is clear.

Quote:
My belief rests upon the fact that God inspired His Word and He also preserved it.

No one argues that he inspired and preserved his word. You are trying to argue how he did that without anything but your faith. Sorry Marc, but I don't take your word for it.

Quote:
Conservative Christians held this position prior to the late 1800's.

Conservative Christians also disagree with your position. Another red herring.

Quote:
Some of the most revered expositors of the church held to the traditional texts of Scripture as the Word of God.

Alot of them didn't have anything contrary to them either. Another red herring.

Quote:
What crime is it to believe that in holding the TR I hold the words of God?

Who says it is? Another red herring.

Quote:
Dr. Bauder's blog, however, questions the legitimacy of believing what the church historically believed.

Again, you are simply arguing in actuality for only a few hundred years. You aren't talking about the entire history of the church. I know you think you are, but that is disingenuous.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Matthew Richards's picture

many questions have been put forth here for Pastor Monte to answer. We would all know where he stands if he would answer them in a straightforward manner. The questions are quite simple to answer and the only reason why one would not would be if they were in fact a KJVO of the Ruckmanite variety. I am looking forward to seeing if these questions are ever answered...I won't hold my breath.

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

Pastor Marc Monte's picture

Dear Larry and Matthew: You have both asked me a lot of questions, and I have purposely not answered them because they take us far afield from the original topic of the blog. The blog topic is not "What does Pastor Monte believe." The topic is Dr. Bauder's call for some degree of separation from Christians who hold to the traditional texts of Scripture.

I doubt that anyone would seriously challenge the contention that Dr. Bauder's call for separatism based upon this criteria is a new thing. In addition to being a new proposal, Dr. Bauder's idea flies in the face of church history. Calvin, you will recall, used the traditional texts. He believed them to be the preserved words of God. How is it that we lionize Calvin but villify Smith and Sexton?

If you would like clarification about my personal beliefs, I would be happy to have a cup of coffee with either of you. That should be especially easy for Matthew since you reside in Indianapolis. Let me assure you that I do not believe in "double inspiration" nor am I a Ruckmanite. I simply hold the traditional texts of Scripture to be the Word of God and the King James Bible to be the best English translation of those words. In the words of my beloved professor Dr. Dell Johnson, "The text is the issue!"

Matthew, let's get together for a cup of coffee sometime!

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

James K's picture

In other words, when questions that force a person to actually give an answer for why they believe what they believe, they just have to have faith and don't need answers.

Pastors should know better.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Pastor Marc Monte's picture

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister QUESTIONS, rather than godly deifying which is in FAITH: so do." (I Tim. 1:4, emphasis added)

Answers based upon faith are important; answers grounded in the cloudy doubt of rationalism and textual criticism engender doubt. The textual issue is beyond the scope of effective discussion ona blog. Too many participants lack the educational credentials to adequately deal with the topic, and it tends to produce more heat than light.

Remember, the original topic of this blog is not Bibliology. Rather, it is Bauder's new call for separating from people who believe what the church has always believed. It is his call to separate from people who read the traditional texts and have the audacity to believe they are the words of God. Obviously, Dr. Bauder didn't think through the implications of his words. We, however, should. There is absolutely no reason to separate--even by degrees--from people who hold to the traditional texts of Scripture. To do so flies in the face of over 1800 years of church history. In his attempt to rope in the left and ostrasize the right, Dr. Bauder has gone too far.

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

Larry's picture

Moderator

Thanks Marc ... Here's what I hope is a respectful, if not somewhat pointed response, hoping to generate some further clarification.

Quote:
The topic is Dr. Bauder's call for some degree of separation from Christians who hold to the traditional texts of Scripture.

[From the later post ] it is Bauder's new call for separating from people who believe what the church has always believed. It is his call to separate from people who read the traditional texts and have the audacity to believe they are the words of God.

I wonder if you might show us where Bauder calls for separation from those who hold to traditional texts. I don't see Dr. Bauder refer to a Greek text at all. Did I miss something? Can you show me where Bauder said anything about traditional texts or people who hold to them?

It reads to me like he is referring to a specific position on an English text, which both of the opening quotes talk about, and that is what frames his article. As I say, I can't even find a reference to a Greek text, apart from the two opening quotes. We might be able to better interact if we knew what you were basing your assertion on.

Quote:
I doubt that anyone would seriously challenge the contention that Dr. Bauder's call for separatism based upon this criteria is a new thing. In addition to being a new proposal, Dr. Bauder's idea flies in the face of church history. Calvin, you will recall, used the traditional texts. He believed them to be the preserved words of God. How is it that we lionize Calvin but villify Smith and Sexton?
Actually, I don't think the principle is new at all. One of the fundamental issues in the separatism debate has always been Scripture, and particularly, what Scripture teaches about itself. It has quite frequently been various deficient views of inspiration. We have always separated from people who deny the biblical teaching on inspiration and inerrancy. So to extend that in this arena is hardly new, I think. Even the original fundamentals clarified this with Gray's assertion that inspiration properly applied only to the original writings. So indeed, any view of inspiration that is different is "new." Anyone who contends that a particular text or translation is without any copyists error is teaching something new. I think it is that to which Bauder refers.

In other words, what's new is the idea that Bauder is addressing, that only one English text is the Word of God. It is those people who have denied orthodox and historic teaching on the Bible. The Scriptures do not teach that only one English translation is the Word of God, or even that only one text is the Word of God. That is outside the Scripture. It is abiblical at best, and I think unbiblical. So this particular issue may be new because this particular teaching about Scripture is new. Until relatively recent times, this was a non issue because no one believed what is being taught by some. Therefore the application of separation must also be new.

For my dollar, I have no problem with someone who prefers the TR or the KJV. I have no problem if they think the UBS/NA text is deficient, or dare I say, corrupt. I think the TR is manifestly deficient. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that can be made for the TR being the best text. The Majority Text, yes; the TR, no. But I am fine to let people disagree with me on that. I don't attack the TR. I don't say it isn't the Word of God, or is a perversion. And that's the issue. The problem comes in when people attack the Word of God in other texts or translations. When they call the Bible a perversion or some such, that is problematic for me. When they get schismatic about it, that is problematic for me.

As for church history, many have said (as have I) that I think you are a bit overreaching here. There are a lot of complexities and hypotheses about textual transmission. And there are good reasons for why much of church history used the "traditional texts." They really had no other option. So they used what God in his providential grace had preserved for them. I am not sure there is a good argument why we should do less. And furthermore, I think it is irrelevant. The measure of truth is what the Scriptures say. Historical theology informs us and helps us, but it does not dictate to us.

I don't think appealing to Calvin works much either. I haven't seen anyone here lionize Calvin that I can recall, but if he is so bad and so deficient in his understanding of salvation, then surely his judgment was flawed on the textual issue as well.

But to the point of my questions to you, the reason I think your personal beliefs are important for this discussion is because you think Dr. Bauder is calling for separation from you, but based on what you say about your own beliefs, that doesn't seem to be the case. So I asked your position to see if in fact you are being referred to by Dr. Bauder. I think the questions I asked would help to show whether or not you are one of the ones Bauder is referring to. So I will you will clarify where you are getting your understanding that Bauder is referring to Greek texts (he may be and I missed it), and whether he is targeting you.

Thanks Marc, for indulging me here, and I would have that cup of coffee with you if we were ever in the same place.

RPittman's picture

Don Johnson wrote:
Roland, please relax. This is just a blog, it isn't intended to be formal discourse. I am sorry I didn't add the word "paraphrased" to the words you object to. I had it in my mind to do it, but as I typed it slipped my mind before I hit 'Save'. You need to not take this so seriously, in my opinion.

Other than adding the word, "paraphrased", I stand by my entire comment, which was:

Don Johnson wrote:
A couple of years ago one of the writers over at JackHammer suggested that a new translation from the TR would be acceptable. He was crucified for it. He then beat a hasty retreat.

You see something of that spirit in Roland's answer to you, where he says, "why would we need a new version, we already have an authoritative version". [paraphrased ]

I was thinking of this statement by you when I wrote that:

RPittman wrote:
I don't know the answers to these questions but I do have some thoughts. The process of canonization took a period of time. I think the acceptance of the KJV took time as well before it was adopted by the Believing Church. For this reason, I believe, we ought to be very slow in accepting any new translation, even based on the TR, until we see how the Believing Church accepts it. The interesting thing is that even the modernization of the KJV, such as the New Schofield Reference Bible, really never became that popular among the Believing Churches.

You noted the many translations of the past. However, you will also note from history that these many translations fell by the wayside in fairly short order. The KJV became the accepted Bible among the Believing Churches for almost 400 years. This says something.

I think my paraphrase is a fair assessment of what you said. I'll leave it for others to judge if I am right or not.

Don, it sounds a lot like an excuse when you are caught in the wrong. No, you didn't paraphrase correctly but accuracy doesn't seem to be a big deal in your estimation. Integrity matters whether it is a matter of formal or informal discussion.

RPittman's picture

James K wrote:
In other words, when questions that force a person to actually give an answer for why they believe what they believe, they just have to have faith and don't need answers.

Pastors should know better.

This is nothing more than razzing the other team. It lacks real substance and thought-out content. Not all questions can be answered, especially in a yes or no format. Furthermore, there are many questions that we don't know the answer although it does not preclude one being right in a given position. I, for one, do not believe, as it has been demonstrated time and again, in the exhaustive, comprehension grasp of knowledge through rationalistic argumentation. The human mind, although we as humans are impressed with its scope and power, is very limited and finite when it comes to wrestling with ultimate realities. From your statements, I was afraid that this had escaped your notice.

Now, we come to the real point of my post. Questions are not always answerable, although simply stated, in a yes or no format. Additionally, questions can be highly prejudicial to the answer, putting one at a disadvantage by the framing of the question. A most obvious example would be: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" With this in mind, we see that your point lacks merit because the questions were trying to force answers in specific direction. The framing of the questions and the presumptions behind them are the defining factors, not the veracity of someone's belief or position. Failure to answer such questions does not prejudice anyone's case. The other side can ask similar questions of your position.

Greg Long's picture

And still no answers are given to clear, straightforward questions.

The only cogent argument that has been presented is the standard KJVO argument--if the KJV (or TR) is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, how can other versions (or texts) also be the inspired, inerrant Word of God when they differ due to manuscript variants or translational choices?

As Dr. Bauder clearly pointed out, and as many others have also done so, the KJV translators themselves stand very clearly opposed to those who put forth this false dilemma. Why? Because:

  1. They offered marginal readings of textual variants.
  2. They specifically stated in the introduction that even the meanest translation is the Word of God inasmuch as it accurately reflects the original.

    KJVO proponents say they hold the KJV translators in high esteem, and yet put forth arguments the KJV translators specifically refuted.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

RPittman's picture

James K wrote:
Marc Monte wrote:
I happen to believe it is preserved in the texts used consistently throughout church history--you know, those texts that all Christians believed in prior to the late 1800's.[emphasis added ]

You speak of it as a singular text that has been used. There is no singular text that has been used for 1900 years. All we have are fragments. All Erasmus had was fragments. Everyone involved in any of these editions or versions we speak of used textual criticism. Have you forgotten the dark ages, when the scriptures were chained? We don't know what the worldwide actual church was using during that time. We don't have their Bible. Even if you claim it was the Byzantine text type that was superior, many of the fragments date very late. I don't have a problem with the Byzantine text type. I have a problem with the persistent misinformation.

Hey, James, did you read what you were quoting or were you so wrapped in in your preconceived arguments that you forgot? Note that Marc used the word texts which I thought was the plural form of the word text that you used. So, your whole contrived argument is flushed down the drain because you failed to note the plurality of the word Marc used.

RPittman's picture

Greg Long wrote:
And still no answers are given to clear, straightforward questions.
OK, if you demand straightforwards answers from others, then should not your side be obligated to the same straightforward answers? Right?
Quote:

The only cogent argument that has been presented is the standard KJVO argument--if the KJV (or TR) is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, how can other versions (or texts) also be the inspired, inerrant Word of God when they differ due to manuscript variants or translational choices?

Well, let's start with this basic question. Even Dr. Bauder, the authority, seems to agree with the premise that the KJV is the Word of God.
=Dr. Bauder wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should state that I am one of those misfits who still prefers to use a King James. Given a choice, it is what I will preach from (and since I am almost always given a choice, it is almost always what I use). It is the English text that I employ in my seminary teaching. It is the Bible that I have committed to memory and the Bible that I quote. Never in my life have I raised any objection to reading or using the King James Version.

Let me go further. I confess the King James Version to be the Word of God. It is Holy Scripture. I hold it to be authoritative. When I read it (as I do each day), God holds me responsible to obey what I read.

Now, let's hear your answer to the conclusion of the question.
Quote:


As Dr. Bauder clearly pointed out, and as many others have also done so, the KJV translators themselves stand very clearly opposed to those who put forth this false dilemma. Why? Because:

  1. They offered marginal readings of textual variants.
  2. They specifically stated in the introduction that even the meanest translation is the Word of God inasmuch as it accurately reflects the original.

    KJVO proponents say they hold the KJV translators in high esteem, and yet put forth arguments the KJV translators specifically refuted.

Well, I didn't say that I held the KJV translators in high esteem. The matter is not based on their qualifications or sincerity. This is, IHMO, a mistake by KJV defenders who are unwitting employing the same Modernistic rationalism in their arguments that the MV proponents use. It's a mistake. We cannot establish God's Word by rationalism or scholarship. Whereas I respect the KJV translators and their efforts, I don't think this is what sets the KJV apart. Equally qualified and sincere men have made other translations. It is not man's doing but God's. Preservation is God working behind the scenes, without the knowledge or intentional effort of man, to preserved His Word. This is the only way that we can have full confidence that His Word is accurately preserved because otherwise we are faced with a mind-numbing, confusing multitude of variant scholarly opinions.

Furthermore, I'm certain that the translators had no idea of the impact of their translation. They were mere men functioning the realm of scholarship and theology trying to do what they considered a good thing. Their opinions are not authoritative. Appealing to them is no more weighty than appealing to any other Bible scholars. Like prophets of the OT who prophesied things they didn't understand, the KJV translators apparently were unaware of the import of their task. (Now, don't say this requires "second inspiration" or something like that--I'm not advocating re-inspiration. Just leave it there.) Thus, your points carry little weight because the translators are not authoritative anymore than other scholars. The role of the KJV only became apparent with time as the Believing Church accepted it.

James K's picture

Roland, you didn't point out anything. Reread what I actually said. Monte speaks of the traditional texts as a singular text as though no variation existed. Sorry for your confusion.

Maybe you can take a stab at this since Monte won't.

1 John 2:23 KJV Whosoever

1 John 2:23 KJV
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 John 2:23 NASB
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Which text did the KJV translators take the last HALF of the verse from? It wasn't the TR.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

RPittman's picture

James K wrote:
Roland, you didn't point out anything. Reread what I actually said. Monte speaks of the traditional texts as a singular text as though no variation existed. Sorry for your confusion.

Maybe you can take a stab at this since Monte won't.

1 John 2:23 KJV Whosoever

1 John 2:23 KJV
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 John 2:23 NASB
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Which text did the KJV translators take the last HALF of the verse from? It wasn't the TR.

You assume that "Monte speaks of the traditional texts as a singular text as though no variation existed." Where did he say it?

Furthermore, I have neither the interest nor time to debate minutiae with you. I don't know the answers to many of the details but I'm comfortable in saying, "I don't know." The problem with your rationalism is that it compels you to answer and correlate everything. It's hopeless and this kind of thinking went out with the belief in scientism. It is just taking some time for it to be realized and disseminated among some elements, particularly some aspiring intellectual Christians. It's not so much that we're different from the world, it's that we are thirty years behind.

RPittman's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:
many questions have been put forth here for Pastor Monte to answer. We would all know where he stands if he would answer them in a straightforward manner. The questions are quite simple to answer and the only reason why one would not would be if they were in fact a KJVO of the Ruckmanite variety. I am looking forward to seeing if these questions are ever answered...I won't hold my breath.

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

Matthew, you make a great cheerleader for your team but you do a little too much razzing without enough substance. You and others are trying to control the course of debate by posing prejudicial questions and demanding yes or no answers. A simple question does not always have a simple answer. Suppose I asked you if General Relativity is true. Well, it's a simple question and should have a simple yes or no answer. Right? Wrong! Although General Relativity is supported by evidence and is generally accepted, it conflicts with quantum mechanics, which is also supported by evidence and is accepted. My point is that, although I accept and teach both theories, the answer is not simple and needs much qualification. Such is the state of the questions that you and others are demanding.

You are so insistent on the KJV side answering questions, why don't you answer a few? Don't demand of others what you are unwilling or can't do yourself. Here's several for size.

Dr. Bauder wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, perhaps I should state that I am one of those misfits who still prefers to use a King James. Given a choice, it is what I will preach from (and since I am almost always given a choice, it is almost always what I use). It is the English text that I employ in my seminary teaching. It is the Bible that I have committed to memory and the Bible that I quote. Never in my life have I raised any objection to reading or using the King James Version.

Let me go further. I confess the King James Version to be the Word of God. It is Holy Scripture. I hold it to be authoritative. When I read it (as I do each day), God holds me responsible to obey what I read.[emphasis added ]

Assuming that the KJV is the authoritative Word of God as Dr. Bauder believes, please answer the following questions in order.

  1. Do the MV's (modern versions) say the same thing as the KJV?
  2. Are the MV's also the Word of God?
  3. If the MV's and the KJV do not say the same thing (and they don't), how can you say both are the Word of God?
  4. Are the MV's authoritative?
  5. If both the MV's and the KJV (as Dr. Bauder says) are authoritative, how does one know which to believe if two authoritative versions are in conflict?
  6. If what constitutes God's Word depends on scholarship (i.e. textual criticism), how do we know that we have God's Word at all? After all, no chain is stronger than its weakest link and if the text of God's Word depends on human scholarship, then our confidence can be no stronger than the scholarship that validates the text.

So, friend, if you unwilling or unable to answer all of the above, it would be in order for you to retract your post and apologize to Bro. Monte because you are setting a higher criteria for him than for yourself. I believe there's a name for that sort of thing. No excuses!

RPittman's picture

Perhaps I didn't make it clear in my post above but the question that I'm asking you to answer is the emphasized part in the quote below:

Quote:
The only cogent argument that has been presented is the standard KJVO argument--if the KJV (or TR) is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, how can other versions (or texts) also be the inspired, inerrant Word of God when they differ due to manuscript variants or translational choices?

I look forward to your answer.

Matthew Richards's picture

[quote=RPittmanplease answer the following questions in order.

  1. Do the MV's (modern versions) say the same thing as the KJV?
  2. Are the MV's also the Word of God?
  3. If the MV's and the KJV do not say the same thing (and they don't), how can you say both are the Word of God?
  4. Are the MV's authoritative?
  5. If both the MV's and the KJV (as Dr. Bauder says) are authoritative, how does one know which to believe if two authoritative versions are in conflict?
  6. If what constitutes God's Word depends on scholarship (i.e. textual criticism), how do we know that we have God's Word at all? After all, no chain is stronger than its weakest link and if the text of God's Word depends on human scholarship, then our confidence can be no stronger than the scholarship that validates the text.

So, friend, if you unwilling or unable to answer all of the above, it would be in order for you to retract your post and apologize to Bro. Monte because you are setting a higher criteria for him than for yourself. I believe there's a name for that sort of thing. No excuses![/quote]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. They are both God's Word
4. Yes
5. No major doctrine is affected
6. God has providentially preserved His Word for us in the totality of manuscripts and translations available to us! God has been so good to us!
7. Sorry it took me so long to get my answers in here--I had to wait for a chance to do this over lunch. We are trying to finish out the year here at work and spend our customers' end of the year budget money! Busy times here!

Thank you for razzing me--keeps me on my toes! You may want to try and add some substance as well--your circular reasoning is making me dizzy!

Godspeed,

Matthew Richards

RPittman's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:
[quote=RPittmanplease answer the following questions in order.

  1. Do the MV's (modern versions) say the same thing as the KJV?
  2. Are the MV's also the Word of God?
  3. If the MV's and the KJV do not say the same thing (and they don't), how can you say both are the Word of God?
  4. Are the MV's authoritative?
  5. If both the MV's and the KJV (as Dr. Bauder says) are authoritative, how does one know which to believe if two authoritative versions are in conflict?
  6. If what constitutes God's Word depends on scholarship (i.e. textual criticism), how do we know that we have God's Word at all? After all, no chain is stronger than its weakest link and if the text of God's Word depends on human scholarship, then our confidence can be no stronger than the scholarship that validates the text.

So, friend, if you unwilling or unable to answer all of the above, it would be in order for you to retract your post and apologize to Bro. Monte because you are setting a higher criteria for him than for yourself. I believe there's a name for that sort of thing. No excuses!

Quote:
1. Yes
Your answer to #5 contradicts this. You implicitly agreed to differences there.
Quote:

2. Yes
All of them?
Quote:

3. They are both God's Word
How can two or more differing versions (the words are different) both be God's Word? In your textual criticism, you guys make a deal about variants. What about variants here? Are there no variants among the KJV and MV's?
Quote:

4. Yes
How can varying versions all be authoritative because their variations obviously contradict one another's authority?
Quote:

5. No major doctrine is affected
This is not answering the question. So, how do we determine which is authoritative in the minutiae? If minutiae is not important why do we have all the fuss with textual criticism over the so-called minor variants of Greek words?
Quote:

6. God has providentially preserved His Word for us in the totality of manuscripts and translations available to us! God has been so good to us!
So, what are you saying here? Are you saying that God has preserved His Word in all the words, including the wrong ones in bad manuscripts and mistranslations, in the "totality of manuscripts and translations available to us," or God has preserved His Word in somewhere in the "totality of manuscripts and translations available to us" for us to search out and find much like a needle in a haystack? What do you mean? This doesn't sound much like preservation at all.
Quote:

7. Sorry it took me so long to get my answers in here--I had to wait for a chance to do this over lunch. We are trying to finish out the year here at work and spend our customers' end of the year budget money! Busy times here!
Yeah, I'm glad that you're not using your company's time for personal reasons.
Quote:

Thank you for razzing me--keeps me on my toes! You may want to try and add some substance as well--your circular reasoning is making me dizzy!

Godspeed,

Matthew Richards

Your quips are cute and amusing but I sure wish that you would try to come up with something original. It might enliven my day.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

You guys can keep dodging the questions, but they do not go away.

Just please start with one.

Are any English translations of the Bible the authoritative Word of God other then the KJV?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Greg Long's picture

Roland, my answers are the same as Matthew's, which would be the same as the answers of most Bible-believing scholars and theologians today as well as down through the centuries (speaking of the "believing church"!)--including the KJV translators.

If you can't answer simple, straightforward questions, how are you helping the discussion? What are you contributing to it?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Quote:
RPittman wrote:For some who believe that the KJV is the Word of God (and Dr. Bauder says that he believes this too), it would a denial of this belief if they believed that other MV's were also the Word of God. So, in being consistent with their own belief, which Dr. Bauder apparently believes as well, they must say that they are KJVO. If the KJV is the Word of God, how can there be other differing versions that are also the Word of God? It is the answer to this one question that is the major demarcation between Bauder and Sexton.

This was posted on the new thread for part 24 of this series. However, it seems to be Roland's answer to the question. He does not view any English translation other than the KJV as the Word of God. This quote also precludes any possibility of an updated KJV in modern English, or any other modern English translation from the TR, since these would obviously have differences from the KJV. This is EXACTLY the dangerous, heretical kind of thinking being highlighted here in part 23. This is EXACTLY why Roland (and perhaps Marc) was unwilling to answer the questions posed.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I'm sure he doesn't want my pity, but I feel bad for him (and Marc too). It's a really tough position to defend and he's quite outnumbered here.
So... hats off for courage and tenacity.

But, alas, as far as I can tell the position is still wrong.

A suggestion for a position that would be easier to defend and still allow the same end result as far as translation-use is concerned:

We believe that God's Word deserves to be translated as accurately as possible and are persuaded that no-one has been able to match the KJV for faithfulness to the best text. We also doubt anyone ever will, but recognize that godly men may differ both on the superiority of the KJV in the present and it's likely superiority in the future. We hold all who revere the Scriptures in high regard.

And... in response, those who are not KJVO could hold the above position "in high regard" while disagreeing with it.
But it seems few are willing to be that kind of KJVO. I don't know why not. There's no shame in saying this is how I see it and other good people see it differently and I respect them anyway. Why is that so hard?
Sadly, many hold to KJVO as foundational doctrine. The necessary inference is that all other translations are abominations and those who use them are something close to apostate. That posture doesn't give the rest of us anything to "hold in high regard" because we've been banished to infidel land. So mutual respect is impossible.
It's a sad thing to behold.

Pastor Marc Monte's picture

Dr. Bauder wrote:

"Neoevangelicalism and hyper-fundamentalism are equal errors. Whatever we should have done in response to the new evangelicals is the same thing that we should do now in response to hyper-fundamentalists. Historic, mainstream, biblical fundamentalism has no more in common with Pensacola, Crown, and West Coast than it had with Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham."

What did fundamentalism do with New Evangelicalism? We separated from it as error! Without a doubt, Bauder is calling from separation from all within his new "hyper fundamentalist" category. He even names some institutions: PCC, Crown, and West Coast.

Until we focus on this new call for separatism based upon a new category invented by Dr. Bauder, we miss the heart of the issue.

Mike Harding, who is not a TR man himself, recognizes the legitimacy of holding a traditional text position. For too long that position has been purposely equated with Ruckmanism within some fundamentalist circles. The TRUTH is that PCC, Crown, and West Coast are NOT Ruckmanite institutions. To call for separation from them based upon their choice of Greek Text and English Version consistent with their Greek Text is a NEW position. To class those who use the traditional texts as "hyper-fundamentalist" is a NEW position.

This, gentlemen, is the crux of the issue. Why don't we address the implications of what Bauder has said?

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

Larry's picture

Moderator

Quote:
Mike Harding, who is not a TR man himself, recognizes the legitimacy of holding a traditional text position.
I am fairly sure Bauder does as well, and you have not cited anything from the article to prove otherwise.

Quote:
To call for separation from them based upon their choice of Greek Text and English Version consistent with their Greek Text is a NEW position. To class those who use the traditional texts as "hyper-fundamentalist" is a NEW position.
But can you show us this in the article? Again, I have read it several times, and performed a few searches on it, and I can't find anything about those who use traditional texts.

Those who use the NKJV would be consistent with a TR position, and yet Bauder mentions nothing about them that I can see. That would seem to show that your contention is not correct.

Quote:
Why don't we address the implications of what Bauder has said?
Apparently, we are still trying to figure out what he actually said. You won't show us where he said we need to separate from people who hold a traditional text position. Why not simply show us that, and then we can address the implications of it? Just cut and paste or something ... that way you don't have to type it all out. We all have the article and can read along with you. So why not just show us this call for separation from those who prefer traditional texts?

I suppose I am being a bit of a bulldog here but I really think there is an important issue here. I think we need to see the proof for the statements you are attributing to Bauder. You may in fact be correct. I don't know ... but I don't see it in the article. So I am asking you to show it to us.

Michael Riley's picture

Pastor Marc Monte wrote:
Until we focus on this new call for separatism based upon a new category invented by Dr. Bauder, we miss the heart of the issue.... To call for separation from them based upon their choice of Greek Text and English Version consistent with their Greek Text is a NEW position. To class those who use the traditional texts as "hyper-fundamentalist" is a NEW position.

This, gentlemen, is the crux of the issue. Why don't we address the implications of what Bauder has said?


Pastor Monte,

The reason that we don't "address the implications of what Bauder has said" is that, prior to discussing such implications, we must first have some agreement about "what Bauder has said." The question that Larry has asked you is exactly the one that you need to answer: on what basis do you believe that Dr. Bauder is calling for separation from those who believe in the superiority of the traditional text? You have made this statement repeatedly in this thread; like Larry, I don't see this claim as being anything like a legitimate reading of the original article.

Don Johnson's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Sadly, many hold to KJVO as foundational doctrine. The necessary inference is that all other translations are abominations and those who use them are something close to apostate. That posture doesn't give the rest of us anything to "hold in high regard" because we've been banished to infidel land. So mutual respect is impossible.
It's a sad thing to behold.

I had a pretty close friend essentially separate from me using that exact word to describe the issues. We have had a number of years of fruitful cooperation, yet he has decided to make the versions thing the 'foundational' issue between us. I asked him if he considered it to be part of "the faith" described in Jude 3. He wouldn't answer the question.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don Johnson's picture

Larry wrote:
Quote:
Why don't we address the implications of what Bauder has said?
Apparently, we are still trying to figure out what he actually said. You won't show us where he said we need to separate from people who hold a traditional text position. Why not simply show us that, and then we can address the implications of it?

I think Dr. Bauder is at least guilty of creating the impression that he is calling for separation from the more moderate side of the KJO movement by some of his remarks in this article. Please note the following progression of thoughts:

Kevin Bauder wrote:
My second observation is that the attitude displayed by the aforementioned preacher and college is genuinely contemptuous of the Word of God.

Here he is clearly referring to Dwight Smith and Crown/Clarence Sexton.

Kevin Bauder wrote:
Extreme as these pronouncements are, evangelists such as Smith and colleges such as Crown, Pensacola, and West Coast actually represent the very moderate side of the King James Only movement.

Here he calls the statements that begin the article 'extreme'.

Kevin Bauder wrote:
Sadly, these people are attempting to create a new fundamentalism on the basis of a new fundamental. They have set themselves up as judges over the Word of God, determining for hundreds and thousands of Christians what will and what will not be recognized as Scripture. Alongside the gospel, they have introduced loyalty to the King James Version as a test of Christian fellowship.

Here, 'these people' probably refer to the more extreme parts of the KJO movement, but the reference is unclear.

Kevin Bauder wrote:
If we believe in separation, we ought to be separating from hyper-fundamentalists more quickly and more publicly than we do from conservative evangelicals.

In this final quotation, a ringing call for separation from hyper-fundamentalists is made. The question is, does he consider Dwight Smith and Crown College / Clarence Sexton to be hyper-fundamentalists? He did say their statements were extreme, but also said they were the very moderate side of the King James Only movement.

So I think at least there is some ambiguity here, and I can see where Marc and Roland take offense.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Pastor Marc Monte's picture

Look at the Bauder quotation in my comment #172 at the top. Notice the institutions named--PCC, Crown, West Coast. None of these schools is Ruckmanite. Each of these schools stands for the traditional texts of Scripture. Bauder classifies them as hyper-fundamentalist. He says the hyper-fundamentalist should be treated just as we treat New Evangelicals. That can only mean one thing: separation.

Neither Smith nor Sexton is Ruckmanite, yet they introduce the article dealing with "hyper-fundamentalism."

If Bauder isn't calling for separation in relation to traditional text advocates who use the KJV as the best representation of those texts, what is he calling for? If he is really talking about Ruckmanites, why doesn't he say so? Is Dr. Bauder confusing traditional text people with Ruckmanites? (We all know he is too smart for this.) If his arguments against KJVO people stem only to Ruckmanites, why did he name so many non-Ruckmanite institutions and personalities? These, my friends, are the burning questions of the hour. (OK, well, maybe not.)

Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com

James K's picture

Monte, they are more than standing for the traditional texts. They are KJVO, meaning anything else is not God's word. This is not a hard point to see. I hope that helps clear up your confusion.

Did you get a chance to look up 1 Jn 2:23 yet in your KJV, particularly that half the verse in italics cuz it isn't in the "traditional text."

One doesn't have to be a Ruckmanite to be separated from. KJVO is a liberal doctrine in contrast to the fundamental truth. Fundamentalists must be separated from. KJVO need to be separated from.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

rrobinson's picture

@Don Johnson,
There may be some ambiguity as to whom Dr. Bauder is actually referring to. A couple of people are making a big issue of this, saying that the article is divisive and calls for separation from all kinds of folk hitherto regarded as respected members of fundamentalism. But this is not necessarily the only interpretation of the article...

On the contrary, one could look at the article as a call for fairness and grace. Are we as careful and as deliberate and as consistent about our separation to the right of us as we are to the left? Are we as reluctant to separate from someone on the left as we would be on the right?

Are we ready to examine the potential issue to the left of us on a case by case basis and see at what levels we can preserve some kind of fellowship; or, are we too ready to lump everyone on the left under certain labels so that we can completely separate from everyone with that label, every time, no questions asked.

Are we ready to be balanced and treat errors on the right with as much attention as we do the errors on the left, of which they are in some ways mirror images? We should be "just as quick", or just as slow, to separate from any real error, no matter where it is found, inside or outside, left or right.

Matthew Richards's picture

Pastor Marc Monte wrote:
Look at the Bauder quotation in my comment #172 at the top. Notice the institutions named--PCC, Crown, West Coast. None of these schools is Ruckmanite. Each of these schools stands for the traditional texts of Scripture. Bauder classifies them as hyper-fundamentalist. He says the hyper-fundamentalist should be treated just as we treat New Evangelicals. That can only mean one thing: separation.

Neither Smith nor Sexton is Ruckmanite, yet they introduce the article dealing with "hyper-fundamentalism."

If Bauder isn't calling for separation in relation to traditional text advocates who use the KJV as the best representation of those texts, what is he calling for? If he is really talking about Ruckmanites, why doesn't he say so? Is Dr. Bauder confusing traditional text people with Ruckmanites? (We all know he is too smart for this.) If his arguments against KJVO people stem only to Ruckmanites, why did he name so many non-Ruckmanite institutions and personalities? These, my friends, are the burning questions of the hour. (OK, well, maybe not.)

This is easy to explain. There is really no difference between a Ruckmanite and someone who believes that God's Word is preserved perfectly only in one of the TR texts or KJV. One believes in double inspiration and the other arrives at the same conclusion only using other terminology to get there. End result is they all believe that the KJV is a miraculously perfect translation and all other translations are "perversions". The nutty KJVO church I was raised in used to love to say they were not "Ruckmanites" as if that made their error OK. Fact was that they were all the same. Main difference is that Ruckman admits errors in the TR and believes that the KJV corrects it--"non Ruckmanite" KJVO just refuse to admit that there are any errors at all in the KJV...

Matthew Richards

Pages

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.