Nazarene Caffeine

.  Peter Ruckman is best known for his view that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the perfect Bible in English. He held the view that the 1611 King James Version was so perfect that it could be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. We have explored some of this in a previous post . In short, Ruckman believed in a type of "re-inspiration" of the King James Version such that it was rendered superior to even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which it was translated. Ruckman's work consistently makes it clear that it is the 1611 KJV that he believes was "re-inspired," and not a later update to the KJV (we will look at these in a minute). It is the 1611 KJV that he defends with his arguments from crown authority and lack of copyright. 1  It is the 1611 KJV that Ruckman argues was re-inspired when he claims that the Holy Spirit urged the King James translators to write. 2  It is the 1611 King James Version that Peter Ruckman defended through...

  There are different beliefs within the King James Only Movement. I would like to explore two of them in this introduction. It is important to understand some key distinctions between these two groups, or else it may seem that I am attacking a position that I am not attacking. Therefore, I will draw a distinction between two different groups within the King James Only Movement. The first camp simply asserts that the King James Version is the best English translation. This claim could be labelled the "Classic KJV-Only" position. This is the position that was held by what appears to be the majority of people who advocated for the King James Version's superiority to other translations up until about the middle of the 20th century. Typically, a person in this group will hold to the idea that the Textus Receptus is divinely preserved, and the King James Version is the best translation from the Textus Receptus. Or, in some cases, that the Textus Receptus is the best Greek basi...

  (Due to the length of this post, I have made it available via PDF for those who would prefer to read it in multiple sittings. The PDF can be found here .) In the previous post, we examined the three arguments that are often used by KJV-Only advocates to provide an affirmative answer to the question, " Does Psalm 12:6-7 support the view that God has divinely preserved Scripture in such a way as to create a perfect and flawless English translation in the King James Version?" As we examined each of these arguments, we found that they each have major weaknesses and, as a result, come up short. In this post, we are going to examine some arguments for what we have labeled the "contrary" position. That is, we are going to examine some arguments that have been put forward for the position that Psalm 12:6-7 does not provide support for the KJV-Only doctrine of preservation outlined above and in the previous post. Specifically, the contents of this post are an outgrowth of ...

One of the passages that has been central to the discussion of the King James Only position has been Psalm 12:6.-7 This passage, in the KJV, reads, " The words of the   Lord   are   pure words: as   silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O   Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The reason that this passage is central to the debate comes from the claim that stems from specific understandings of this passage. The KJV-Only advocate often sees in this passage a Doctrine of Preservation. There are different nuances taken by different individuals in the King James Only camp. There are some who see a Doctrine of Preservation whereby God divinely preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts in such a way that the King James Version that came from them was pure, like a piece of silver or gold that has been refined in fire. Others see in this passage an allusion to the King James Version itself. Some, such as Pet...

As we continue to explore the King James Only Controversy, it is important to stop from time to time to examine some of our assumptions. One assumption that has been made by many King James Only advocates is that the King James translators saw their translation in essentially the same light that the King James Only advocate sees it. In fact, this is not the case. It is a significant fact that the King James Version translators did not see their translation as a "reinspired" translation. They don't appear to have believed that their translation was the only acceptable English translation. They didn't see their translation as the best translation that could ever be made, but just the best that they could do. In short, the King James translators would, it seems, have opposed the King James Only position today. Because of the various assumptions that have been made, I think it is important to note some of the things that can be gleaned from the King James translators them...