Fundamentalism and the KJV

8/12/2019 Fundamentalism and the KJV

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fundamentalism-and-the-kjv 1/20

44

Fundamentalism and theKing James Version:How a Venerable EnglishTranslation Became a Litmus

Test for Orthodoxy 1

Jeffrey P. Straub

INTRODUCTION

2011marks he our hundred h anni- versary o he publica ion o one

o he mos impor an pieces o English li era ureever released. Arguably, no o her book has had

he widespread inuence and las ing signicanceo he King James Version (KJV) o he EnglishBible. I s American i le is derived rom King James(S uar ) he Firs o England (James VI o Sco -land), whose ini ial idea i was or a new common version, hough here is no evidence ha he everau horized i or use in English churches during a

ime o Puri an agi a ion.2 I even ually becamehe dominan English version and

held ha posi ion or mos o henex hree cen uries. Bu wi h i scelebri y s a us came some in eres -

ing his ory.3

In he la e nine een hcen ury, John William Burgon andsome o his associa es argued or

he KJV agains heRevised Version (RV) no so much because he KJV was a superior English ransla ion

bu because he underlying Greek ex was a bGreek ex han he RV used basically, he Wcot and Hor ex .4 I is beyond he purview o hessay o discuss hese issues per se , hough some o

he argumen s used in his early round o conen er in o he la er his ory ha his paper 5

Since he 1960s, evangelica ls, or, more specically undamen alis s have been deba ingcon inued use ulness o he AV and he undlying Greek ex or regular use in he li e ochurch. Few issues have had he kind o polarizieffec ha he batle over Bible versions in geneand he batle or he KJV in par icular, have h wi hin some segmen s o American Pro esism. American Chris ian undamen alism6 o he

wen y- irs cen ury has come, in he minmany, o be closely associa ed wi h he “KJV 1

in such as way ha many non- undamen alhink he movemen is cul ish, and some lay pple wi hin undamen alism i sel hink hais he one who personally “au horized” he Kas he Bible or he English-speaking world. hdevelopmen o his view has aken place over

J P. S is Pro essoro His orical eology a Cen ralBap is eological Seminaryin Plymou h, Minneso a. Dr.S raub earned he Ph.D. rom

e Sou hern Bap is eologicalSeminary. e au hor o a numbero scholarly ar icles, prior o servingas a pro essor he has also served asa senior pas or, church plan er, andmissionary.

SBJ 15.4 (2011): 44-63.



45

pas hal cen ury ini ially in response o liberal-izing endencies wi hin American Pro es an ism.La er in luences wi hin broader evangelicalism,including egal i arianism, helped o bols er hesupremacy o he KJV ashe divinely-approvedBible, no only or he English speaking world, bu

even o be used as a ransla ion aid or renderinghe Bible in o o her languages.

his essay will se or h he broad con ourso he his ory o he “KJ V-only” movemen , dis-cussing some o i s mos color ul charac ers andpeculiar views.7 e s ruggle or he KJV includesa deba e over ex ual cri ical maters, wi h somepre erring he KJV o modern versions because

he KJV comes rom he Majori y ex . However,mos 8 who adhere o a KJV-only posi ion do soou o a belie ha in his version alone, God haspreserved his word, inerran and in a llible, ormodern English readers. For his large hos oChris ians, he use o he “King James 1611” (asopposed o “corrup ions” o he KJV, including

he New King James Version and even he New Sco- eld Re erence Bible, which upda ed cer ain words wi hin he ex , rendering i a “cor rup ion” o

he original KJV) has becomehe li mus es orChris ian or hodoxy.9 e sign o a biblical church becomes he Bible version used rom he pulpi .Churches, colleges, mission agencies, e c., proudlyno i y heir cons i uency ha hey are commited

o he “KJV 1611.”10

e de ense o he KJV akes wo approaches.Some argue ha he 1611 KJV is he mos accu-ra e rendering o he original manuscrip s or

he English-speaking world. O hers are moredogma ic.11 e KJV is he per ec word o Godable even o correc Greek and Hebrew manu-scrip s hemselves.12 Bo h o hese views will beexamined in his essay, or in reali y, here is very

litle difference in he kinds o argumen s usedor ei her view.

A PER SONAL NOTEis is an in ensely personal issue or me. I grew

up in a mainline church wi h li le awareness o

he Bible, despi e being bap ized as an in an , con-rmed, serving as an al ar boy, and singing in hechurch choir. I remember litle o my childhoodchurch li e excep or a dis inc recollec ion o hesermon preached he Sunday afer ei her Mar inLu her King, Jr., or Rober Kennedy was assas-

sina ed. e minis er preached on gun con rol. Isuppose I remember his dis inc ly because, likemany boys my age, I liked o play wi h oy guns!

In any case, I never heard eaching using aBible un il my eenage years when I began atend-ing a Sou hern Bap is Church in he early 1970s.

e minis er used he KJV, as many conserva ivechurches o ha genera ion did, al hough in he you h group, many o us carriedTe Living Bible. As I was comple ing my senior year in high schoolI me a young man who invi ed me o atend a col-lege recrui men mee ing or his school ha , as i

urned ou , was a undamen alis college. I hadlitle idea who he Sou hern Bap is s were in hesummer o 1974, much less wha undamen al-ism was, bu a ha summer college mee ing, I was impressed wi h he college’s presiden and he vision or Chris ian raining ha he pu or h, soI decided o atend ha college in he all o 1974,ra her han a secular universi y as I had in ended.

My academic direc ion immedia ely shi edrom a s udy o wildli e conserva ion o prepara-ion or he minis ry. A ha Bible college, I was

exposed o undamen alis views o heology, bu in he Bible classes he pro essors reely usedei her heir Greek New es amen s or he KJV.

e Greek ex we used was he UBS second edi-ion ra her han heex us Recep us. Wi hin a cou-

ple o years, he New American S andard Version(NASB), which had been published shor ly be oreI enrolled and was sold in he campus books ore, became popular. Bo h acul y and s uden s bough

and used he NASB. We s ill memorized rom heKJV as a s andard ex bu wi hou any sense o i ssuperiori y. I was simply a mater o consis encyacross he s uden body.

I was during hese days o prepara ion hahe issue o Bible ransla ions became a con ro-



46

versial one among undamen alis s. Al houghhere had been a number o modern versions pub-

lished wi hin he pas one hundred years, i washree versions in par icular ha seemed o cause

concern he NASB (1963/71),Te Living Bible (1962/1971) and he New In erna ional Version (1973/78). Te Living Bible was in ensely popularin he mid-1960s because he Billy Graham Evan-gelis ic Associa ion received permission o prinfy housand copies o Living Leters , he rs por-

ion o be released o he public. However, as heNASB was he “mos li eral” o he recen modern versions, i was he pre erred choice or hose o uss udying he Bible in he 1970s.

A he same ime one o my pro essors begano ell us in class ha he had become he objec o

repea ed atacks in a local-church newspaper orhis use o modern versions. I was he rs any ous had heard o he brewing con roversy. In ime i would grow rom small isola ed atacks o a uni edeffor o champion he “KJV 1611”!

By he end o he 1970s I was looking owardmarriage and was da ing a young lady a a ruralchurch in Nor h Carolina. Her a her, a godly bu uneduca ed layman, loved his Bible and readi regularly. I was beginning o look like he girland I migh have a u u re oge her. One Sun-

day we were visi ing a he pas or’s home andhere was ano her gues presen , a man, whosename I have long orgo en, bu who had a nick-name—“Mr. King James.” Apparen ly he was in

he vanguard o he growing army o de enderso he “1611.” A lunch ha day, qui e naivelyon my par , I allowed mysel o be drawn in oa ra her exci ed discussion on Bible versions. I

ook he side in avor o modern ransla ions as Ihad been augh in college. I hough no hing o

he conversa ion when i ended as a s alema e,

bu my young lady riend recoun ed he s ory oher a her who sugges ed o her ha perhaps sheshould no con inue he rela ionship wi h me because o my weak view o he Bible. Moreover,since she was he church pianis , borrowed romano her church, her a her wan ed her o come

back o h is church ra her han a end a chu where a man who denied he Bible was work in

he pas or o he church I was working in calme a home la er ha week and ra her sheishly old wha had happened and in ormed m

ha , while he unders ood my views and knI loved God and he Bible and was no here ii was in everyone’s bes i n eres i I si ms opped working in his church! Wi hin a eshor days, I had los bo h my almos - iancémy church minis ry, all because I held a de e

ive view o he KJV!ere simply is no ime o rehearse he res

my s ruggles wi h suppor ers o he KJV, buce i o say ha I have been in undamen alisand around he KJV-only segmen or more h

hir y years. ough I was almos convinced oorm o he posi ion in he mid-1980s, I hol

bo h he use o modern versions and he criex ha underlies hem. However, he narro

KJV-only view o he Bible has given occasion many on he ou side o undamen alism o m

he movemen as a whole.

MOV ING TOWAR D KJV ONLY ISMBecause o he populis na ure o he KJV

movemen wi hin undamen alism, i is no

o de ermine when his movemen began o ace wi hin he large and ra her amorphous momen o sel -iden i ied undamen alis s13 Nosingle academic ins i u ion seems o have inichampioned his posi ion. Moreover, when examining undamen alis ins i u ions, among heins i u ions s ill adhering o heir heri age,is a mix ure among he alumni wi h prominede enders o he KJV-only posi ion and prominrejec ers o he posi ion rom he various scho14 For example, among he alumni o he ins i u

where I each, here are published proponen s bo h sides o he deba e.15 Addi ionally, he rsundamen alis school I a ended also had w

known and published advoca es on each side ohe deba e.16



47

F K JV-O M

His orian and opponen o he KJV-only move-men Doug Ku ilek sugges s ha he oun ainhead

or he modern emphasis on he KJV can be racedo an insignican publica ion by a Seven h-Day

Adven is , Benjamin G. Wi lk inson, in 1930.17 Wilkinson’s book was among a small number o books ha were wri en o objec o heRevisedVersion (1881) and i s American cousin, he Ameri-can S andard Version (ASV, 1901). hough Sev-en h-Day Adven is s are no considered a par o

he undamen alis ribe, Benjamin Wilkinson’s book,Our Au horized Bible Vindica ed, did come

o he aten ion o a Bap is Bible eacher in Ore-gon, Jasper J. Ray, who ook up he de ense o heKJV wen y-ve years la er in he bookGod Wro eOnly One Bible.18 Ray plagiarized heavily rom Wilk inson, hough he d id no acknowledge hisdeb o him in his book.19 Ray soon became awareo a more sophis ica ed de ense o he KJV by arecen Harvard Universi y .D. gradua e EdwardF. Hills. Hills had done his disser a ion on ex-

ual cri icism20 and, in 1956, produced he irsedi ion o hisTe King James Version De ended.21

e essence o Hills’s argumen was ha God hasproviden ially preserved his word and here ore,

he Scrip ures should be rea ed in a way qui eunlike all o her ancien ex s. According o Hills,

God’s preserva ion o he New es amen ex was no miraculous bu providen ia l. e scribesand prin ers who produced he copies o he New

es amen Scrip ures and he rue believers whoread and cherished hem were no inspired buGod-guided. Hence here are some New es a-men passages in which he rue reading canno be de ermined wi h absolu e cer a in y….

In o her words, God does no reveal everyru h wi h equal clari y. In biblical ex ual cri i-

cism, as in every o her depar men o knowledge,here are s il l some de ails in regard o which we

mus be con en o remain uncer ain, bu hespecial providence o God has kep hese uncer-

ain ies down o aminimum. Hence i we believein he special providen ial preserva ion o heScrip ures and make his he leading principle oour biblical ex ual cri icism, we ob ainmaximumcer ain y , all he cer a in y ha any mere man canob ain, all he cer ain y ha we need. For we are

led by he logic o ai h o he Masore ic Hebrewex , o he New es amen ex us Recep us, ando he King James Version.22

Hills ci ed Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) and John William Burgon (1813-1888), Dean o Chiches erCa hedral, who bo h sugges ed ha he reasons why here was a pauc i y o Byzan ine manu-scrip s o an early da e was ha ei her he scribesdes royed he exemplars when hey were doneusing hem or he earlier versions o hese manu-scrip s simply were worn ou and did no survive.

e older ex an manuscrip s ha have survivedo his day did so because “ hey were rejec ed byhe Church and no read or copied bu allowed o

res rela ively undis urbed on he library shelves oancien monas eries.”23

I seems likely ha he issue ha drove bo hRay and Hills was he hen recen ly publishedRevised S andard Version, which was comple ed in1952.24 Be ore ha ime, hough here had been

numerous a emp s o upda e he language ohe KJV, hese were largely unsuccess ul rom apopulis s andpoin .25 Bu he RSV was a seriousatemp o challenge he populari y o he KJV byupda ing he language and reec ing modern ex-

ual cri ical heories in some o he dispu ed pas-sages.26 e inuence o Hills’s works may be seenin he heavy dependence ha la er KJV de enderssuch as David O. Fuller (1903-1988) and Pe er S.Ruckman (b. 1921) made o his wri ings in heirearly de enses o he KJV.27

T B K J V Undoub edly he wo mos impor an champi-

ons o he KJV among he undamen alis s wereDavid Fuller and Pe er Ruckman. Fuller was conver ed in a J. Wilbur Chapman evangelis ic mee -



48

ing in 1916 and was bap ized by prominen New York undamen alis pas or Isaac Massey Halde-man. Afer gradua ion rom bo h Whea on Col-lege and Prince on Seminary, he en ered in o he

undamen al Bap is minis ry, succeeding earlyundamen alis Oliver W. Van Osdel a he inu-

en ial Weal hy S ree Bap is Church o GrandRapids, Michigan. Van Osdel was an early separa -is , leaving he Nor hern Bap is Conven ion well be ore he orma ion o he General Associa iono Regular Bap is Churches (GARBC) in 1932.28 He even ually joined ha group o separa is s and became one o heir mos inuen ial pas ors, serv-ing on i s rs council o our een in 1938. Fuller’scon ribu ion o he rise o he KJV-only posi ioncame in 1970 wi h he publica ion oWhich Bible? However, Fuller did no always embrace a posi ionespousing he superiori y o he KJV.

In 1932, Fuller carried on correspondence wi hEdgar J. Goodspeed (1871-1962), he well-knownChairman o he Depar men o New es amenand Early Chris ian Li era ure a he Universi yo Chicago. Goodspeed was a no ed heologicalliberal who was involved in Bible ransla ion him-sel . e subjec o he correspondence had o dono wi h he use o he KJV per se bu he personal belie s o Goodspeed regarding major Chris ian

doc rines he Virgin Bir h, he dei y o Chris , hea oning dea h and bodily resurrec ion o Chrisand apparen ly Goodspeed’s ness o ransla e heScrip ures. In he course o he correspondence,and apparen ly in response o some hing Good-speed had wri en o Fuller, Fuller indica ed hahe “pre erred” he King James Version “ rom hes andpoin o he beau y o he language. I realize

ha i is no as accura e as he Revised bu he accu-racy does no ex end o he doc rine bu merely o

he clearness o he hough expressed. All o he

versions I believer [sic] were verbally inspired, inhe original manuscrip s.”29 In a ollow-up leter oGoodspeed’s reply, he quo ed he above ci a ionagain o emphasize ha he issue was no a new

ransla ion as such bu he ai h o he ransla or.Fuller implied ha one who denied he essen ial

claims o Chris iani y could no render an accuransla ion rom a doc rinal s andpoin .30

I was apparen ly his later belie ha cauFuller o embrace a s rong KJV posi ion inWhich Bible?nearly or y years la er. “Now many ne

ransla ions demand recogni ion and promnence he Revised Version, he American S andard Version, he Revised S andard Version, New English Bible, he Knox Version, he Anch Vers ion, he Berk ley Vers ion, e c. , e c.” Fulshowed his indeb edness o J. J. Ray, ci ing hsympa he ically. Fuller held ha “ here have many a emp s o adul era e and o des roHoly Scrip ures.” Following Ray’s argumen a

ha o Edward F. Hills, Fuller believed ha“god o his world” was atacking “rs he perand work o he Son o God, he Lord Jesus Ch

he Incarna e Word” and secondly assailing “in egri y and accuracy o he wri en WorGod he Bible.” “From he beginning here ha been no pause in he assau l on God ’s Son anon God’s Word.” his led Fuller o believe hin order o pro ec he Scrip ure or u ureera ions o Chris ians, “ here has been a graciexercise o Divine providence in i s [ he Biblepreserva ion and ransmission.”31

he preserva ion ha Fuller believed o ha

aken place, he ook rom he wri ing o Hills.32

Fullerci ed Hills who himsel had ci ed J. W. Burgon:

For he providence o God was wa ching over hisacred ex even during he rs hree cen urio he Chris ian era. Even during his roubledperiod a sufficien number o rus wor hy copieo he New es amen Scrip ures were produced by rue believers under he guidance o he HolySpiri . ese were he manuscrip s o which he whole Greek Church re urned during he our h

and fh cen uries, again under he leading o heHoly Spiri , and rom which he Byzan ine ex was der ived.33

Which Bible? was a compila ion o ar iclerom a varie y o au hors, living and dead, so



49

o which were in prin in o her places, haa emp ed o prove Fuller’s views s a ed in hein roduc ion. Signi ican is he ac ha Fullerreproduced much o he earlier work o Wilk in-son ha lay behind Ray’s book, omiting he ac

ha Wilkinson was a Seven h-Day Adven is ,describing him merely as a man “all bu unknown

o he world o scholarship” who “ augh or many years a a small and obscure Eas ern college.”34 Fuller sough o demons ra e he superiori y o

he KJV by ci ing errance Brown, hen direc oro he rini arian Bible Socie y, who wro e on hecharac er o he KJV ransla ors. He hen repro-duced an ar icle by Rober Dick Wilson showing

he des ruc ive na ure o higher cri icism. Fullero ered an ar icle ha championed heex usRecep us and ried o show he de iciencies o

he Wes cot-Hor heories o ex ual cri icism.ese kinds o argumen s became s andard are

in pro-KJV li era ure ollowing Fuller, bu usu-ally wi h much less sophis ica ion.35

Fuller championed his view o he end o hisdays and i affec ed numerous rela ionships.36 Hehad gradua ed rom Whea on in 1925 and wouldeven ually serve on i s board or or y years. arela ionship came o an end in 1974, however, due

o he perceived drif a Whea on, as evidenced,

Fuller believed, by heir openness o cer ain mod-ern versions like he New English Bible andGood News or Modern Man.37

I is di icu l o de ermine he precise in lu-ence o Fuller’s book, bu i is clear ha i playeda signican role in he lives o o hers who subse-quen ly embraced he “KJV 1611.” Sorenson, orexample, no es,

In he early 1980s, a pas or riend gave me a book writen by David O is Fuller en i ledWhich Bible?

I received i wi h skep icism. I cu across hegrain o every hing I had been augh in seminaryon he issue o Bible ransla ions. However, as Iread wha Fuller wro e, I came o unders and ha

here were wo Greek ex s.38

Ye or he al l he rhe or ic ha Fuller cou ldmus er, he General Associa ion o Regular Bap-

is Churches, he undamen alis ellowship wi h which Fuller was associa ed al l o his l i e, neverembraced his narrow view o he KJV, hough

hrough mos o i s his ory he KJV was he Bibleha i s churches regularly used. In 1961 Charles .

Bu rin published a cri ique o several o he morerecen modern versions wi h recommenda ions on

heir use ulness or he churches. He believed ha“Americans [were] singularly blessed o have somany versions o he Scrip ure.” e versions wereevalua ed or readabili y as well as ai h ulness o

he message o he ex . he au hor no ed hasome o he versions held a liberal bias, bu he didno dismiss he use o modern versions ou o handnor did he show he undue de erence or he KJV

ha would la er charac erize a hyper- undamen-alis wing o he movemen .39 is non- KJV-only

view has con inued o be he norma ive posi iono he GAR BC as a ellowship, despi e some o i sindividual pas ors who have dissen ed.40

o be sure, Fuller’s book appears more scholarlyand sophis ica ed han many o he subsequende enses o he KJV. Fuller himsel apparen lyhad a working knowledge o Greek and Hebrew,unlike many modern de enders o he KJV.41 He

also atemp ed o main ain a higher level o Chris-ian civili y in his de ense o he KJV. I once wro eo Fuller abou he caus ic na ure o he deba eha drew a response o lamen rom him especially

wi h respec o ano her well-known early cham-pion o he KJV, Pe er S. Ruckman.

Pe er Ruckman began wri ing abou he KJV inhe early 1960s. Ruckman was conver ed o a un-

damen alis version o Chris iani y in 1949 aferconsidering Zen Buddhism and Roman Ca holi-cism. Having already earned his B.A. rom he

Universi y o Alabama, he enrolled in Bob JonesUniversi y o Greenville, Sou h Carolina, wherehe comple ed requiremen s or he M.A. and Ph.D.in our years.42 He wen on o pas or Bren Bap-

is Church o Pensacola bu afer ension in hechurch arose over his second marriage, his irs



50

wi e having led or divorce in 1962, he churchapparen ly spli . Ruckman hen s ar ed Bible Bap-

is Church o Pensacola in 1974 wi h seven eenpeople where he remains he pas or.43

In 1965, Ruckman s ar ed he Pensacola BibleIns i u e and began o promo e he KJV as heexclusive Bible or he English-speaking world.Even ually he would au hor several books on heissue and begin a mon hly church newspaper he Bible Believer’s Bulle in , rom whose pages he wouldlaunch usillades o invec ive agains hose whore used o accep he AV as he “in all ible living word o he Living God.” His primary arge s were

undamen alis s who re used o adop his narrow views.44 Ruckman became so prominen in heBible ransla ion issue ha he movemen o encarries his name. o be a “Ruckmani e” in somecorners o he KJV-only discussion is a ra her pejo-ra ive erm. Pro-KJV advoca e David Cloud goes

o grea leng hs o dis ance himsel rom wha heconsiders he alse eaching o Pe er Ruckman, asdoes Donald A. Wai e, ano her s rong advoca e o

he KJV posi ion.45 Cali ornia undamen alis pas-or R. L. Hymers considered “Ruckmanism” cul ic

and a “demonic doc rine which is shaking he veryounda ions o undamen alism a his hour.”46

In some ways, i may be un air o consider Pe er

Ruckman in a con emporary rea men on heKJV and undamen alism since Ruckman him-sel is he objec o signican cri icism by many

undamen alis s on bo h sides o he KJV deba e.Moreover, he a acks many undamen alis s or

heir views on Bible versions, including someKJV advoca es who do no go ar enough in heirde ense o he KJV. Early in he publica ion o hismon hly paper, Bible Believer’s Bulle in , he prom-ised o run a series o or y ar icles documen ing

he his ory o “ he Alexandrian cul ,” which had

“duped” many undamen alis s. In hese ar icleshe a acked many well-known undamen alisschools ha did no hold he line on he use o

he KJV. Bob Jones Universi y and members oi s acul y o en were cas iga ed in Ruckman’sdia ribes.47 And ye , despi e his regular assaul s

on well-known undamen alis s, he received spor rom o her prominen undamen alis mei her direc ly wi hin he pages o his paper opulpi affilia ion. Ma erial rom David O. Fuappeared in he irs issue o he paper.48 Ruck-man also ran a piece by Fuller ha had appeare

in ano her independen Bap is paper,Te Projec-or, edi ed by Day on Hobbs o Mil on, Floridahe ar icle, Fuller was de ending he inerranche KJV. Les er Roloff (1914-1982) and Ruckm

appeared oge her a he “King James Bible Beer’s Con erence” in Oc ober 1978 in LivoniMichigan. he con erence was promo ed in Bible Believer’s Bulle in.49 Roloff, who was raisedand educa ed a exas Sou hern Bap is , aing Baylor Universi y and Sou hwes ern Bap

eological Seminary he 1930s, broke wi h hconven ion over denomina ionalism, becominan independen , undamen alis Bap is . R

ravelled widely in undamen alis circles deshis a ilia ion wi h Ruckman and s ood i

or he KJV.50 An ar icle by ano her well-knowundamen alis de ender o he KJV, David C

(b. 1949), appeared in he Bible Believer’s Bulle-in. Cloud had grown up in a Chris ian home buurned away rom God as a eenager. He s aro drink and served in Vie nam, becoming a dru

user here. Cloud re urned home, and afer brieconsidering Hinduism, was conver ed in 1973He enrolled in ennessee emple Universi y andsoon s ar ed he Way o Li e Li era ure minPar o Cloud’s es imony appeared in Ruckmapaper, along wi h his condemna ion o rock aroll music.51 Al hough many in undamen alismdislike he ex reme rhe oric o Ruckman, aRuckman ofen levels his li erary guns a his ell

undamen alis s, he s ills meri s rea men discussion, hough he clearly mani es s a hyp-

undamen alis posi ion.I would ake a essay o considerable lengo rea in de ail he peculiar views o Ruck

regarding he KJV. Many o his views are idiosycra ic wi h regard o he general eaching oKJV proponen s. For example, Ruckman believ



51

ha “ he A. V. 1611” some imes is “superior oany Greek ex .” a is, when here is a discrep-ancy be ween he KJV and he manuscrip s, even

he ex us Recep us , hen he KJV should be con-sidered au hori a ive.52 Wha his does is make

he “mis akes” in he KJV a orm o “advanced

revela ion”!53 Ruckman believes his becausehe holds ha he KJV was “given by inspira iono God.”54 I is or reasons like his ha manyde enders o he KJV among he undamen alis sdis ance hemselves rom he ex reme eachingso Pe er Ruckman.

A secondary issue among he undamen al-is KJV proponen s who break wi h Ruckmanis his excessively s riden rhe oric. He is o enacerbic in his commen s. For example, he NIVis re erred o as he “Nuty Idio ’s Version.” Here ers o “ his jackass, jackleg, jack rabbi , jacka-napes ‘ORIGINAL GREEK’ - ‘God AIDS Abra-ham’s seed.’ Where did i come rom? Well bless your ever lovin’, coton-pickin’, blue-eyed world,darling….”55 His language is color ul, s riden ,and o en excessive, even or he mos ardenKJV-only suppor ers.

Ruckman s ills pas ors in Pensacola and pro-mo es he KJV. Bu his in luence among main-s ream undamen alism and even among heKJV-only wing o undamen alism has grea lydiminished over he years.

C Ce batle or he KJV has now been raging in

undamen alism or more han or y years. Despi enumerous a emp s by more sober-minded andlinguis ically rained undamen alis s o answer

he charges and accusa ions o some o he mos voci erous advoca es o he KJV-only movemen ,56

here remains a robus , i nar row sub-cul ure

wi hin undamen alism ha iden ies i sel wi hKJV-onlyism.Several con emporary examples could be ci ed.

In 1996, Dell Johnson preached several chapelmessages a Pensacola Chris ian College (no con-nec ion wi h Pe er Ruckman) on he superiori y

o he KJV. e chapel messages were video apedand mailed o undamen alis pas ors ar and wide. Addi ional messages in subsequen years were delivered a Pensacola, also video aped andmailed around he world.57 In he second series,

heodore Le is (1951-2005) and Michael Ba es

joined Johnson in condemning he use o modern versions. Le is had a Ph.D. in Ecclesias ical His-

ory rom he Universi y o Edinburgh.58 WhileLe is was no ac ually a undamen alis , never-

heless, he and Johnson held o similar views onhe issues o Bible versions. In ac Le is wro e he

pre ace or he our h edi ion o Edward Hills’sTe King James De ended(1984). He also con ribu ed

wo books o he Majori y ex deba e, which is asubca egory o he KJV-only movemen .59

Because Le is was no a undamen alis , his useo promo e an o herwise perceived undamen al-

is issue soon crea ed dissension among unda-men alis , pro-KJV-only advoca es. David Cloudcalled him “a new evangelical,” a erm Cloud uses ver y imprecisely, and cas iga ed Pensacola orusing him o de end he KJV. Moreover, Cloudpoin ed ou ha Le is ac ually seemed o opposemuch in undamen alism. “I eodore Le is is a

riend o undamen al Bap is s, hey need no ene-mies!”60 Johnson, on he o her hand, was a gradu-a e o undamen alis seminary Cen ral Bap isin Minneapolis and had augh in several unda-men alis schools be ore going o Pensacola. Buhe was un rained in he scholarly disciplines oGreek and Hebrew and ex ual cri icism beyond arudimen ary level. He has since lef he employ oPensacola Chris ian College.

e Johnson/Le is videos were answered by agroup o undamen alis educa ors who produceda video response,Fundamen alism and he Word oGod. On he video were heologians, New es a-

men scholars, and o her men who gave a reasonedanswer o he Pensacola posi ion. Fundamen al-is schools like Bob Jones Universi y, Cen ralBap is heological Seminary, De roi Bap is

heological Seminary, Marana ha Bap is BibleCollege, Clearwa er Chris ian College, Nor h-



52

land Bap is Bible College, and Calvary Bap isSeminary sough o presen a uni ed response o

he hyper- undamen alism o he Pensacola vid-eos. ey argued agains he KJV being a es oor hodoxy bo h necessarily and his orically anddemons ra ed how many well-known undamen-

alis leaders o he pas used modern versions.61

Ano her in eres ing book o inuence he un-damen alis deba e on Bible versions is G. (Gail) A. R iplinger’s New Age Bible Versions.62 is booksough o discredi he modern versions by a “guil by associa ion” me hod o cri ique. Her leng hyscreed is a classic illus ra ion in he use ononsequi urargumen a ion. he book is illed wi hasser ions and ou -and-ou misin orma ion on heconnec ion be ween many modern ransla ionsand he new age movemen . here are plen y oquo es rom new age wri ers bu here is no appar-en connec ion be ween heir belie s and he con-nec ion ha Riplinger says exis s.63

Riplinger, like Le is, has also allen ou o avoramong many undamen alis s due o her unusualassocia ions, shrill one, and dubious background.One o he early cri icisms came rom her ailure

o use her ul l name on he book bu ra her sim-ply “G. A. Riplinger.” She is repor ed o have sug-ges ed ha God gave her he de ails o he bookmiraculously. ere ore she signed he book “G. A. Riplinger” o signi y ha he book was wri -

en by “God and Riplinger.”64 Ques ions o hermari al s a us began o sur ace in recen years.She had main ained among her undamen aliscons i uency ha she was married only once, budocumen s began o circula e ha in ac she had been married hree imes. his discrepancy puher credibili y in serious jeopardy. When asked orclarica ion, she was, apparen ly, no or hcomingand ac ually lied o conceal her mari al his ory.

ere ore, many ormer riends have wi hdrawnheir endorsemen o her li era ure.65

One o he mos prolic pamphle eers and lec-urers o KJV-onlyism is Donald A. Wai e. He is

curren ly he presiden e Dean Burgon Socie yand e Bible or oday (BF ). e BF is a li era-

ure minis ry ha offers hundreds o pamph books, recorded sermons and lec ures o he damen alis world, wi h many o hese soudealing wi h he KJV. Wai e himsel is amongmore educa ed men in undamen alism wi h earned doc ora es, a h.D. in Bible Exposi i

rom Dallas eological Seminary in 1955 and aPh.D. in speech rom Purdue in 1961. Wai e, liDavid Cloud, is a more empera e proponen KJV-onlyism. While he argues unrelen ingly his narrow view, he does no resor oad hominem argumen s ypical o Pe er Ruckman.

Among he early in luences on Wai e was J. Ray’sGod Wro e Only One Bible. He also cameacross an early copy o FullerWhich Bible? as wellas copies o J. W. Burgon’s ma erial rom he S

on College library. He also had a copy o EdwaHills’s Believing Bible S udy. By 1971, he

became deeply convic ed and convinced ha heKing James Bible and he Greek ex ha undelies i , as well as he Hebrew ex al hough [hego in o he Hebrew ex a litle bi la er bu [h was convinced ha he Greek ex ha underl

he New es amen o he King James Bible wahe accura e ex o use.66

Wai e’s mos horough rea men o his views may be ound in his De ending he King James Bible (2nd ed., 1996). He argued ha he KJV superior o modern versions or our reasons:used a be er Greek ex ( heex us Recep us),

he ransla ors o he KJV were beter men modern ransla ors (in he sense o being devand or hodox), he ransla ion echnique u by he KJV was be er (Wai e opposes dynaequivalence), and he heology o he KJV is be

han modern versions. Wai e argues, or exam

ha he bibliology o he KJV is beter becauincludes he longer ending o Mark.67 Wai e hasalso produced a number o o her books and bookle s discussing various aspec s o KJV-onlyism68

Will iam Grady is a more recen example ode ender o he KJV. He is curren ly he pa



53

o Macedonia Bap is Church o Swar z Creek,Michigan, and has sel -published wo booksde ending he KJV. Grady es ies ha he Lord“opened my eyes o he King James Bible in 1988afer readingTe Chris ian’s Handbook o Manu-scrip Evidence.”69 Grady’s ini ial burden was o

demons ra e, con ra many undamen alis s, hahe belie in he KJV was necessary. “Becauseoday’sconserva ive is surrounded by li erally

dozens o ‘perversions,’unlike he ime o Burgon ,he mus hold oone Book andone Bookalone ormaters o nal au hori y.”70 Firs among his argu-men s agains modern undamen alis scholarshipis ha he men who held o modern versions wereno “soul-winners.” Wha he connec ion be weenevangelism and ex ual cri icism was Grady didno say, nor did he offer evidence ha hese men were, in ac , no in eres ed in evangelism, excep

o say: “Frankly speaking, he Greek scholar J.Gresham Machen never warran ed he policepro ec ion afforded he uneduca ed, con roversialBilly Sunday.”71

Many KJV-only undamen alis s have rejec edGrady’s ex reme views. In 2005, Grady was invi ed

o preach in chapel a Crown College in Powell,ennessee.72 He was also invi ed o preach he ol-

lowing Sunday nigh a he hos church, empleBap is Church, pas ored by Clarence Sex on. In

ha chapel message, Grady cal led or a renewalo Ruckmanism. is caused Sex on o disinvi ehim rom he previously scheduled Sunday nigh

ollow-up message a he church. Grady, in his con-roversial sermon, wen so ar as o d isassocia e

himsel rom undamen alism, arguing ha un-damen alis s did no believe enough o he essen-

ial doc rinal ru hs such as he in allibili y o heEnglish Bible.

Grady’s recen ly published a second book

expanding on he “ Pseudo King James Onlyi es,” whom he dened as hose “who promo e he KJVin public while accep ing heex us Recep us as

he higher au hori y in priva e.”73 Wha vexes himis ha “nearly every Bible college in he Funda-men alis orbi pursues his duplici ous s ra -

egy.”74 Moreover, Grady judges ha “all ‘ Pseudo King James Onlyi es’ are driven by a eshy desire

o appear scholarly and in ellec ual.”75 Grady’sgoal is o expose hose weak KJV-only men and

o valida e he inspira ion o he KJV. Ofen in hissigh s is Hyles-Anderson College, his alma ma er,

and Jack Schaap, son-in-law o he deceased or-mer pas or Jack Hyles and curren chancellor o

he college. Hyles had been his pas or and hadendorsed he irs book,Final Au hori y. Hylesatemp ed o de end his use o he KJV by he useo logic.76 Grady wan ed o se he record s raigh .He believed ha even Jack Hyles, his ormerpas or, had con ribu ed o he pseudo KJV-onlymovemen . Grady embraces some o Ruckman’srhe oric, calling undamen alis s who do no agree wi h him “pinheads.”77

he lis o o her widely known KJV-onlyi escould be expanded ur her bu here is no need a

his ime o pursue his. ere has been sufficienrea men o mos o he major proponen s o draw

some general conclusions.

A CRIT ICA L EVALUATIONFirs , i should be no ed ha belie in he supe-

riori y o he KJV is a rela ively new posi ion inundamen alis circles and goes well beyond he

his oric ene s o undamen alism. Fundamen-alism has always been concerned wi h he word

o God as he inal au hori y, bu ha au hori y was never ves ed in a par icular Bible ransla ion.I is rue ha much o undamen alism has usedand apprecia ed he KJV as a generally accura erending o he Greek and Hebrew in English. Asmodern versions proli era ed, some called aten-

ion o dangerous rends by heological liberalso mu e key Bible doc rines, bu never discoun edhe value o modern versions hemselves. Despi e

e or s by KJV de enders o ind his orical an e-ceden s in earlier undamen alism who appearedo champion he KJV, he movemen i sel began

in earnes in he later hal o he wen ie h cen-ury and really did no gain any signi ican

momen um un il he mid-1970s. I was dur ing



54

his decade ha Pe er Ruckman began his paper Bible Believer’s Bulle in ha did much o adver iseKJV-onlyism. O course oday, he In erne givesone he sense ha undamen alism is lled wi hKJV-onlyism. Anyone wi h a personal compu ercan s ar a web si e and promo e any view he orshe chooses. Bu undamen alism has no officialspokesmen and despi e he widespread accep anceo he KJV among some segmen s o sel -iden ied

undamen alism, KJV-onlyism has never been inhe mains ream o he movemen . ere ore i is

righ ly cal led hyper- undamen alism. I s propo-nen s add belie in he supremacy and/or he inspi-ra ion o he KJV o long-held and widely agreedupon lis s o his oric doc rinal belie s. Bu manysel -pro essing undamen alis s oday rejec henecessi y o he KJV as an English ransla ion, oreven he superiori y o he Majori y ex posi ion,

or which o hers argue.78

Second, even rom his brie survey o he con-ours o he KJV-only landscape, i is clear hahere is no unied movemen . ere are nearly as

many varia ions o he posi ion as here are menand women who have writen o de end he KJV.

e earlies endorsees Wilkinson and Hills were in no sense undamen alis s. David O. Fuller was among he mos sophis ica ed o he genuine

undamen alis s o hold his view. He main ainedha he KJV was he bes ransla ion rom he bes manuscrip s. Pe er Ruckman and Will iamGrady are among he mos ex reme, arguing ha

he KJV is inspired and can be used o correc heGreek and Hebrew manuscrip s. Gail Riplingeris among he mos idiosyncra ic, arguing ha

he modern versions come rom New Age in lu-ences. She is also among he mos mys ical, sug-ges ing ha even he spelling o he KJV words

hemselves canno be changed les one ampers

wi h some divinely appoin ed illus ra ion. DavidCloud ries o s rike a more sane approach, rejec -ing he excesses, he shri ll voices, and many o hedoc rinal aberra ions. Bu he ails o unders and

ha his own unin ormed and prejudicial viewson ex ual cri icism render his cri icisms equally

invalid. Donald Wai e, while having an in ereing academic background, really is no equippe

o handle he ex ual issues involved in he mscrip evidence.79 In he end, he KJV-only posi

ion is seriously divided and ofen spends as mucenergy atacking varia ions wi hin he posi ionopponen s ou side he posi ion. Many KJV-o

olks are pro essing undamen alis s who ao her pro essing undamen alis s!

his diversi y leads o a h ird observa iFew men or women in he movemen have academic raining o speak o he issues invol wi h he ex ual cri ical maters. is is no versally rue and here are some men who musmore sophis ica ed ar icula ions o a pro-Konlyism. Edward Hills is he mos ar iculaCharles Surre and homas S rouse make aa emp o ground heir argumen s in real

ual cri ical issues.80 Bu generally, de enses o hKJV are con using, poorly wri en, and weaargued. e de enses offer unsophis ica ed argumen s designed o s ir up he passions o he u

ormed Chris ian who loves his Bible bu does have he educa ion o see hrough he con urhe oric and misin orma ion.81 e mere hreao someone “ aking away my Bible” is enoughmake many Chris ians ear. o be sure, all Bib

ransla ion involves a measure o in erpre aand one’s heological disposi ion does affec hone renders he ex . his was he poin Fumade in his early correspondence wi h EdgaGoodspeed. Bu how ar can his be carried ward? Wes cot and Hor are ofen demonized inKJV-only li era ure or heir Anglican sensi

ies, bu hey came rom he same basic heocal radi ion as ha o he ransla ors o

A our h observa ion is ha here doesappear o be any realis ic hope ha he K

only posi ion will die ou any ime in he nu ure. I any hing, he In erne has maddissemina ion o even he mos ex reme oo KJV-onlyism accessible o a worldwide auence, no simply in prin ed orm bu in he aabili y o venues l ike You ube where sermon



55

can be uploaded and shared wi h anyone whohas an In erne connec ion. his may give heillusion o some ha he KJV-only inuence in

undamen alism is wider han i ac ually is. o besure, here are plen y o individuals who pro ess

o be undamen alis s who hold o a s rong KJVposi ion. Bu a he same ime, here is a s rongopposi ion o he movemen being co-op ed byhyper- undamen alism. Happily or Ox ord,Cambridge, homas Nelson, and any numbero o her prin ers o King James Bibles, his willlikely insure a ready marke or years o come.

One inal observa ion is in order. hose whochampion he KJV as he only legi ima e ransla-

ion o he English Bible ail o grasp he essen ialna ure o Chris iani y. From i s incep ion, Chris i-ani y was a “ ransla ed religion.”82 “ ransla ion in o

he common idiom is emblema ic o he incarna ionin which he Word became esh.”83 I origina ed in

he world where Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek wereregularly used by i s earlies adheren s, so muchso ha Pila e needed o have he sign he placed on Jesus cross rendered in mul iple languages. BecauseChris iani y is in ended o be a worldwide religion

here is an underlying assump ion ha he mes-sage o Chris iani y, o be received by he world,needs o be rendered in helingua anca o he los

world. “No language is orbidden, nor is any onelanguage a prerequisi e.”84 is is clearly seen is hemiraculous even o Ac s 2. he apos les had heabili y o be heard in helanguages o he oreignerso he ancien world. Bu his was a unique experi-ence in he early church, never repea ed. How hen would he apos les’s words, which were he wordso Chris , be expec ed o be rendered in o he lan-guages o he world as hey made heir way ou o Jerusalem? I could only have happened hroughBible ransla ion.

Conversely, Islam is a religion o one ancienex , righ ly read in Arabic only. rue here aremodern renderings o he Quran in o her mod-ern languages, bu he rue Muslim believes ha

o s udy he Quran and unders and i arigh , onemus learn Arabic. No o her language accura ely

conveys he ac ual meaning o he Muslim ex .I is ul ima ely an absurd no ion pu or h implic-i ly by KJ V proponen s, ha o k now and loveGod, one mus learn and read Elizabe han Eng-lish or one simply does no possess he word oGod. A ailure o grasp his essen ial elemen oChris iani y is o miss God’s ul ima e purpose.God’s in en ion was ha his word be rendered in

he language o he common man or woman, be iEnglish, French, or Bengali. o ha end, ai h ulChris ians have con inued o render he ex oScrip ure in o he modern languages o he world. As hose languages change over ime, so oo mus

heir ransla ions. Words and idioms change. Sooo mus he biblical ex s be al ered, adap ed, and

re- ransla ed so as o accura ely render he ime-less message o God in o he languages o hose o whom i was sen .

ENDNO ES1 is ar icle was originally published in De roi Bap isSeminary Journal 16 (2011): 41-64, and i is used bypermission.

2David Bebbing on, “ e King James Bible in Bri ainrom he La e Eigh een h Cen ury,” Con erence onhe King James Bible and he World I Made. Baylor

Universi y, 2011. For a recen survey o he his oryo he KJV, see Donald L. Brake and Shelly Beach, AVisual His ory o he King James Bible (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2011).

3For recen discussions on he signicance o he KJV,seeTe King James Bible Afer 400 Years: Linguis ic, Li erary, and Cul ural Inuences (ed. Hannibal Ham-lin and Norman W. Jones; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversi y Press, 2010); Gordon Campbell, Bible: TeS ory o he King James Version 1611-2011 (New York:Ox ord Universi y Press, 2010); David Crys al, Bege :Te King James Bible and he English Language (New

York: Ox ord Universi y Press, 2010); and LelandRyken,Te Legacy o he King James Bible: Celebra ing400 Years o he Mos Inuen ial English ransla ion (Whea on: Crossway, 2011).

4See [Edward Mil ler],Te Ox ord Deba e on ex ualCri icism (London: George Bell, 1897).



56

5For a discussion o he early his ory o he deba e orhe superiori y o he Majori y ex , see Daniel B.

Wallace, “ e Majori y- ex eory: His ory, Me h-ods and Cri ique,” Journal o he Evangelical Teologi-cal Socie y 37 (1994): 185-215 and idem, “His oricalRevisionism and he Majori y ex eory: e Cases

o F. H. A. Scrivener and Herman C. Hoskier,” Newes amen S udies 41 (1995): 280-85. Also see Gordon

D. Fee, “Modern ex ual Cri icism and he Revival ohe ex us Recep us,” Journal o he Evangelical Teo-

logical Socie y 21 (1978): 19-33.6 he erm “ undamen alism” has a narrow and a broad meaning. In he broades sense, i is used odescribe any religious movemen ha s resses s ricadherence o a core se o belie s, usually ound ini s sacred wri ings. Whe her one speaks o Muslim,Hindu, or Chris ian undamen alism, or even Mor-mon undamen alism, his broad sense o he ermis used. For an overview o his wider usage, seeFun-damen alisms Observed (ed. Mar in E. Mar y andR. Sco Appleby; Chicago: Universi y o ChicagoPress, 1991). e use o he erm or his essay will beused in i s more his oric and narrow sense, o re er o

he movemen in wen ie h cen ury American Pro -es an ism ha began o emerge in he la er par o

he nine een h cen ury as a response o he rise oheological liberalism. he erm “ undamen alis ”

likely arose rom he publica ion oTe Fundamen-als , issued a he expense o Lyman (1840-1923) and

Mil on S ewar (1838-1923), be ween 1910 and 1915.See Edward B. Pollard, “Bap is s and Fundamen al-ism,”Homile ic Review 87 (1924): 265. hese werea series o welve bookle s con aining nine y essays by six y- our au hors, scholarly and irenic in na ure,ar icula ing his oric doc rines o he Chris ian ai h.Hundreds o housands o copies were dis ribu ed worldwide. Numerous general works chronicle andevalua e undamen alism. See George M. Marsden,

Fundamen alism and American Cul ure: Te Shapingo wen ie h-Cen ury Evangelicalism , 1870-1925 (New York: Ox ord Universi y Press, 1980), which offershelp ul background his ory or he broad undamen-

alis movemen , racing i s roo s o he conuence ocompe ing heological and cul ural views, including

rising liberalism, Scotish Common Sense Real ismpopular D. L. Moody s yle evangelism, he Holinemovemen , and Millenarianism. Also, see Dougla W. Frank, Less Tan Conquerors How Evangelicals En ered he wen ie h Cen ury (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1986).

7By “KJV-only movemen ” I mean hose who belieha he King James Bible ishe word o God iner-

ran and in allible or he English-speaking wor8I is always difficul o demons ra e ha “mos ”do any hing. How does one prove his? a hisan in ensely personal discussion or me will becomapparen below. I use he erm “mos ” because

hir y years o experience in and around his momen in wo coun ries. I hink ha I can say cer ain y “mos ,” bu I admi i would be difficprove.

9Few KJV-only proponen s seem o realize ha KJV has had a robus ex ual revision his ory oown since 1611. ese revisions are well documen edin David Nor on, A ex ual His ory o he King Jam Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi y Press,2005).

10“For English-speaking people, he Au horized Vesion o he English Bible, commonly called he K James Version (KJV), is he only accura e, modeEnglish ransla ion o he preserved original langu

ex s and is he Word o God in English or Engspeaking people” (“Ar icles o Fai h,” Bible BapChurch, Nashua, NH [ci ed 1 April 2011]. Onlinehtp://bbcn.org/pd s/BBC_Ar icles_o _Fai h.pd .S a emen s o his na ure could be mul iplied

imes over.11“ he KJV or Au horized Version is he mos cople e, accura e and ai h ul ransla ion o he

ex s. Wi h he KJV he reader will no be con oor deceived in maters o doc rine need ul or sal

ion and spiri ual grow h” ( imo hy ow and Jeff

Khoo, A Teology or Every Chris ian [Singapore: FarEas Bible College, 1998], 122).

12“ ere MUST be a nal au hori y; somewhere haone can haveabsolute condence he will nd every word o God per ec ly preserved, so he can haveoppor uni y o live by hose words as God said



57

should.Ta one place, ha nal au hori y, ha comple e ex wi h all God’s individual words is he KJV1611” (Roy Branson, KJV 1611: Per ec ! [Bris ol, N:Landmark Publica ion, n.d.], 77 [emphasis in heoriginal]).

13No a emp will be made o char he landscape o

undamen alism. a is well beyond he scope o hisessay. I is sufficien o no e ha wi h respec o heKJV, here are some sel -iden ied undamen alis s who ake a s rong v iew o he KJV and o hers, who

hough hey may apprecia e he KJV a some level,pre er o use modern ransla ions. I is simply reduc-

ionis o equa e undamen alism wi h a par icularBible version.

14For an early undamen al is rejec ion o KJV-only-ism, see Rober L . Sumner, “Bible ransla ions,”Te Biblical Evangelis , January 1979.

15Cen ral Bap is eological Seminary o Minneapo-lis began in 1956 a er he seminary a Nor hwes -ern Schools closed. Dr. Richard V. Clearwa ers, i s

ounder, was decidedly no commi ed o he KJV-only posi ion, and i was never augh in he class-rooms o he seminary. Never heless, hree alumnihave become spokesmen in some wings o KJV-only

undamen alism. Charles Surre , who earned hisM.Div. a Cen ral, oday eaches a Ambassador Bap-

is College in Latimore, NC, and has con ribu edo he pro-KJV posi ion wi hWhich Greek ex ? Te

Deba e Among Fundamen alis s (Kings Moun ain,NC: Surret Family, 1999). David H. Sorenson earned

he M.Div. in 1972 a Cen ral and ye adop ed a KJV-only posi ion. See David H. Sorenson,ouch No heUnclean Ting: Te ex Issue and Separa ion (Dulu h,MN: Nor hs ar Bap is Minis ries, 2001). Mos wellknown among Cen ral alumni or de ending he KJVis Dell Johnson (M.Div. 1970, h.M. 1974, h.D.1982), ormer pro essor a Pensacola Chris ian Col-lege, who was ea ured in a series o videos produced

by he college de ending he KJV. SeeTe Bible…Pre-served om Sa an’s Atack (Pensacola, FL: PensacolaChris ian College, 1996);Te Bible...Te ex Is he Issue (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Chris ian College,1997); andTe Leaven o Fundamen alism (Pensacola,FL: Pensacola Chris ian College, 1998). Opposing

he KJV-only view among he alumni is W. EdwardGlenny (M.Div. 1976 and .M. 1982), who earned aPh.D. a Dallas eological Seminary. Glenny along wi h his colleague Roy E. Beacham (M.Div. 1976,

h.M. 1983; h.D. rom Grace heological Semi-nary) and several o her Cen ral Seminary alumni/

pro essors collabora ed o produceTe Bible Version Deba e: Te Perspec ive o Cen ral Bap is TeologicalSeminary (Minneapolis, MN: Cen ral Bap is eo-logical Seminary, 1997). Cen ral Seminary pro essorsproduced a second rejec ion o he KJV-only viewin 2001. SeeOne Bible Only: Examining ExclusiveClaims or he King James Bible , ed. Roy E. Beachamand Kevin . Bauder (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).Cen ral Seminary is by no means alone in his mixedhis orical record. Bo h ennessee emple Universi y(TU) o Chatanooga, N, and Bob Jones Univer-si y o Greenville, SC, have had gradua es or pro es-sors on bo h sides o he issue, hough nei her schoolhas officially augh he KJV-only posi ion. For TUsee James D. Price, King James Onlyism: A New Sec (sel published, 2006). Price, hough no an alumnus,has impressive academic creden ials. He has a Ph.D.in Hebrew and Biblical Li era ure rom Dropsie Col-lege or Hebrew and Cogna e Languages and servedon he edi orial commitees o bo h o he New King James Version and heHolman Chris ian S andard Ver-sion. Price augh a TU or 33 years. One o he mosprominen gradua es o U de ending he KJV isDavid W. Cloud (b. 1949), a gradua e o TU in hela e 1970s. A ew mon hs afer his conversion (1973),he en ered TU and soon began Way o Li e Li era-

ure. He has a widely dissemina ed web newsle erha ofen de ends he KJV. He also has publishedForhe Love o he Bible: Te Batle or he King James (Oak

Harbor, WA; Way o Li e Li era ure, 1995).16I s udied under S ewar Cus er, Chairman o heBible depar men and pro essor o Greek a Bob

Jones Universi y in Greenville, SC. He was repea edlyatacked by ano her alumnus, Pe er Ruckman, pas oro Bible Bap is Church o Pensacola, FL. See Pe er S.Ruckman,Cus er’s Las S and (Pensacola, FL: BibleBap is Books ore, 1981).

17Doug Ku ilek, “ e Background and Origin o he



58

Version Deba e,” inOne Bible Only: Examining Exclu-sive Claims or he King James Bible (ed. Roy E. Bea-chum and Kevin . Bauder; Grand Rapids: Kregel,2001), 44.

18 Jasper J. Ray,God Wro e Only One Bible (Eugene, OR:Eye Opener, 1955).

19 he de ails o his may be ound in Gary Hudson,“ he Real ‘Eye Opener,’” Bap is Biblical Heri age(1991): 1-4.

20Edward F. Hills, “ e Caesarean Family o New es-amen Manuscrip s” ( .D. diss., Harvard Univer-

si y, 1946).21Te King James Version De ended: A Chris ian View o

he New es amen Manuscrip s (4 h ed.; Des Moines,IA: Chris ian Research, 1984). he irs edi ion o158 pages was published in 1956 and had grown o280 pages by he our h edi ion.

22Ibid., 224.23Ibid., 186. See also Kirsopp Lake, e al., “ e Caesar-ean ex o he Gospel o Mark,”Harvard TeologicalReview 21 (1928): 349; and John William Burgon,Te Revision Revised (reprin ed.; Paradise, PA: Con-serva ive Classics, n. d.), 319. Burgon wen so ar as osugges ha Va icanus and Sinia icus “are indeb ed

or heir preserva ionsolely o heir ascer ained evilcharac er ” (ibid., emphasis in he original).

24Chap er our o Ray’s book (esp. pages 73-83) arge she RSV in a way ha sugges s his was he ini ial

poin o concern ha caused Ray o wri e he book.For Hills’s commen s on modern Engl ish versions,especially he RSV and NEB, see Hills,he King James Version De ended , 226-29. “ e modernism o

he RSV and he NEB appears everywhere in hem”(226).

25On he his ory o Engl ish Bibles, see Jack P. Lewis,he English Bible rom KJV o NIV: A His ory and

Evalua ion (2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991) andBruce M. Me zger,Te Bible in ransla ion: Ancien

and English Versions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).26For a general discussion on he early s ruggles overEnglish versions be ore he rise o he KJ V-onlymovemen , see Pe er J. uesen, In Discordance wi h

he Scrip ures: American Pro es an Batles over rans-la ing he Bible(New York: Ox ord Universi y Press,

1999).27 he Chris ian’s Handbook o Manuscrip Evidenc (Pensacola, FL: Bible Bap is Books ore, 1970). Nespecially he endno es, 173-222. Ruckman acknowedges Ray’s bookle in he “Pre ace,” bu i is Hin luence ha can be seen in he no es, doub

because Ruckman is atemp ing o deal wi h issuesGreek ex ra her han Bible ransla ions per seevidence o Ruckman’s dependence o Ray, seeTe Bible Babel (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press,1964). A review o his bookle may be ound in ZHodges, review oTe Bible Babel in Biblio heca Sacra 124 (1967): 361-62.

28On Van Osdel, see Kevin . Bauder, “Biography oOliver W. Van Osdel” ( .M. hesis, Denver Bap is

heological Seminary, 1983). On he GARBC, seKen Berghuis, “ e GARBC as Heir o he BapBible Union: A Case S udy in 20 h Cen ury Fudamen alism” (paper read a he Evangelical elogical Socie y an nual mee ing, oron o, CanadNovember 2002).

29David O. Fuller o Edgar J. Goodspeed, 4 May 193(copy in my possession).

30David O. Fuller o Edgar J. Goodspeed, 27 May 193(copy in my possession).

31See David O. Fuller, “Why his Book?” inWhich Bible? (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids In er-na ional, 1972), 5-6.

32Ibid., 6-7.33Ibid., 8.34Benjamin G. Wilkinson,Our Au horized Bible Vin-dica ed (Payson, AZ: Leaves-o -Au umn, 1996), 17

35 A more recen de ense o he KJV ha uses siargumen s is Wi lliam P. Grady,Final Au hori y: AChris ian Guide o he King James Version (Knoxville,

N: Grady, 1993). he goal o Grady’s book is “help dispel [ he] con usion [o mul iple modern vsion] by presen ing a logical, documen ed argume

or he King James Bible as beinghe rue Word oGod or English-speaking people” (v).36He also con ribu ed wo addi ional books o KJV-only discussion:rue or False? Te Wes cot andHor heory Examined , ed . David O. Fuller (GrandRapids: Grand Rapids In erna ional, 1973) andCoun-



59

er ei or Genuine: Mark 16? John 8? (ed. David O.Fuller; Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids In erna ional,1975). is nal work was dedica ed o Jasper J. Ray,“whose bookGod Wro e Only One Bible moved [him]

o begin his ascina ing, ai h-inspiring s udy.”37See resigna ion le er rom David O. Fu ller o he

Whea on presiden Hudson . Armeding, 16 Sep-ember 1974. A copy may be ound in he les o he

General Associa ion o Regular Bap is s, Schaum- burg, IL.

38Sorenson, ouch No he Unclean Ting , 5.39 hough many have come o iden i y he KJV wi h

undamen alism, I have elsewhere sugges ed ha a belie in he KJV ashe Bible o undamen alism and

ha wi hou his one canno claim he i le undamen-alis is, in ac , a posi ion ohyper- undamen alism ,

which I de ine as anyone who adds o he essen ialcore o his oric belie s ha have ordinarily cons i-

u ed undamen alism ( Je S raub, “ he Funda-men alis Challenge: Does Fundamen alism Havea Fu ure?” Bible Facul y Leadership Summi , Fai hBap is Bible College, Ankeny, IA, July 31, 2009). ForBu rin’s ar icles, see Charles . Bu rin, “Modern Ver-sions,” Bap is Bulle in , March 1961, 8-9; idem, “Mod-ern English Versions, P . 2,” Bap is Bulle in , April1961, 23-24; idem, “Modern English Versions, P .3,” Bap is Bulle in , May 1961, 25-26; idem, “ModernEnglish Versions, P . 4,” Bap is Bulle in , June 1961,25-27.

40See H. O. Van Gilder, “Is Your Bible Inspired?” Bap is Bulle in , February 1972, 14-15. Van Gilder,a he ime, ormer na ional represen a ive or heGAR BC, recommended or s udy purposes he useo a good modern version like he ASV 1901 or heNASB (ibid., 15). Also L. Duane Brown, “Evalua -ing and Apprecia ing he King James Version,” Bap-

is Bulle in , July/Aug us 1974, 8-11. W hile Browndemons ra ed he his oric value o he KJV, he also

showed some o i s weaknesses and sugges ed hamodern versions were use ul or Bible s udy. He s illencouraged he con inued use o he KJV as a publicpulpi Bible. Also Will iam Arp, “ e Process o Bible

ransla ion,” Bap is Bulle in , July 2000, 23-26. Arpsummarizes his view: “I seems ha he Scrip ures do

no each explici ly ha God will preserve His Wordin ei her a single manuscrip amily or a single manu-scrip ” (26).

41See or example, G. A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Ver-sions: An Exhaus ive Documen a ion Exposing he Message, Men and Manuscrip s Moving Mankind o

An ichris ’s One World Religion (Munroe Falls, OH: A.V., 1993). A ormer col lege Engl ish pro essor aKen S a e, Riplinger has no ra ining in heology, biblical language, or ex ua l cr i icism. Her bookarose ou o her experience counseling her Chris ians uden s, whom she ound could no be com or ed because hey were using modern versions wi h impor-

an verses allegedly lef ou . An oppor uni y o s udyhe issue o modern versions presen ed i sel when

Riplinger became disabled. She used her ime (six yea rs) o colla e he various versions and discover

hese discrepancies or hersel and believes ha heabbrevia ed Bibles are a par o a sa anic conspiracy

o “inl ra e” evangelical churches, “gradually chang-ing he bible o con orm i s One World Religion,”(1). Riplinger’s de ense o he KJV is no based onan analysis o ex ual issues per se , hough she doesatemp o in erac wi h hose issues oward he endo he book (esp. 467-556). Biographical in orma ionon Riplinger is scarce. You ube has a ser ies o videoso her appearing on Ac ion Six ies wi h Herman Bai-ley ou o Clearwa er, FL, rom which de ails o herli e may be gleaned. See htp://www.you ube.com/ wa ch?v=j-wZaGEDqpo&NR=1.

42“Abou Dr. Ruckman,” [ci ed 26 March 2011].Online: htp://www.KJV1611.org/abou usdrruck-man.h ml.

43David Cloud, “Wha abou Pe er Ruckman?” [ci ed26 March 2011]. Online: htp://www.wayoi e.org/da abase/ruckma n.h ml. Cloud, an opponen oRuckman’s ex reme orm o KJV-only, never heless,is an arden suppor er o he KJV-only posi ion. See

David Cloud,For he Love o he Bible (rev. ed.; OakHarbor, WA: Way o Li e, 1995).44Pe er Ruckman, “From he Desk o Dr. Ruckman” Bible Believer’s Bulle in , 5 May 1978, 2. Ruckmans a ed ha he had held his v iew rom he momen ohis conversion on March 4, 1949.



60

45Cloud, “Wha abou Pe er Ruckman?” See also JeffreyKhoo, “Non Ruckmani e Answers o An iKJV Ques-

ions,” Bible or oday [ci ed 30 March 2011]. Online:htp://www.bible or oday.org/ar icles/answers.h m.

46R. L. Hymers, he Ruckman Conspiracy (Colling-swood, NJ: Bible or oday, 1989). See also Gary R.

Hudson,Why I Lef Ruckmanism (Collingswood, NJ:Bible or oday, 1988).

47 e rs ar icle in his series may be ound in Pe erS. Ruckman, “Fundamen alis s Being Duped by he Alexandrian Cul ,” Bible Believer’s Bulle in , July 1978.

48See “On Your Guard,” an excerp rom a pamphle byDavid O. Fuller, Bible Believer’s Bulle in , May 1978.

49See “King James Bible Con erence,” Bible Believer’s Bulle in , Sep ember 1978.

50Roloff spoke in chapel a Bob Jones Universi y whenI was a s uden and commen ed once ha when icame o he Bible, “We don’ need o rewri e i , weneed o reread i !” Biographical in orma ion on Rol-off may be ound a “Les er Roloff,”Te Sword o he Lord , [ci ed 30 March 2011]. Online: h p://www.swordo helord.com/biographies/rolo les er.h m. Also see “Abou Our Minis ry,” Roloff Evangelis icEn erprises [ci ed 30 March 2011]. Online: htp://roloff.nex me a.com/con en .c m?id=294.

51See David Cloud, “Mom and Dad Sleep While Chil-dren Rock in Sa an’s Cradle,” Bible Believer’s Bulle in ,February 1979.

52Ruckman, he Chris ian’s Handbook o Manuscrip Evidence , 118.

53Ibid., 126.54Quo ed in Cloud, “Wha Abou Ruckman?”55See “Pe er S. Ruckman, “Correc ing he ‘Original’

Greek wi h he English,” Bible Believer’s Bulle in , Janu-ary 2006 [ci ed 30 March 2011]. Online: htp://www.KJV1611.org/BBB/2006/jan-06.pd .

56Numerous examples could be ci ed o undamen al-is s who have atemp ed o re u e he KJV advoca es

wi hou u er ly rejec ing he his oric va lue o heKing James Version. Many love he ransla ion ori s English prose, bu hey recognize ha i is no heonly Bible ha is use ul o English speakers and manyregularly use a modern version. SeeFrom he Mind oGod o he Mind o Man: A Laymen’s Guide o How We

Go Our Bible (ed. James B. Williams; Greenville, SC Ambassador-Emerald, 1999) andGod’s Word in OurHands: Te Bible Preserved or Us. (ed. James B. Wil-liams; Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald, 2003) Also Wi llia m Combs, “Erasmus and he ex uRecep us,” De roi Bap is Seminary Journal 1 (1996):

35-53; idem, “ e Pre ace o he King James and King James-Only Posi ion,” De roi Bap is Seminary Journal 1 (1996): 253-67; idem, “Errors in he King James Version,” De roi Bap is Seminary Journal 4(1999): 151-64; idem, “ he Preserva ion o Scr ip

ure” De roi Bap is Seminary Journal 5 (2000): 3-44.Moreover, undamen alis s are no alone in ryinre u e his error. C . D. A. Carson,Te King James Ver-sion Deba e; A Plea or Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker,1979) and James R. Whi e,he King James VersionOnly Con roversy: Can You rus Modern ransla ion (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Be hany House, 2009).

57See oo no e 15 above or de ails.58See obi uary inTe A lan a Journal-Cons i u ion , 27 June 2005, [ci ed 4 April 2011]. Online: htp://www.legacy.com/obi uaries/a lan a/obi uary.aspx?pagei es ory&pid=14394095.

59See eodore P. Le is,Te Majori y ex : Essays andReviews in he Con inuing Deba e (Grand Rapids:Ins i u e or Biblica l ex ual S ud ies, 1987); iTe Ecclesias ical ex : ex Cri icism, Biblical Au hi y and he Popular Mind (Philadelphia: Ins i u e

or Renaissance and Re orma ion Biblical S ud1997).

60David Cloud, “ heodore Le is: A Friend o Fundamen al Bap is s?,” 8 April 1999, Way o Liera ure [ci ed 4 April 2011]. Online: h p://www

heonemedia or.com/KJV_FILES/014-KJV_De ense_Library.pd .

61SeeFundamen alism and he Word o God , Coali ionor he De ense o he Scrip ures (Allen Park

1998).62

Since he publica ions o New Age Bible Versions , sev-eral o her books have been published by R iplingeSee Gail Riplinger,Which Bible Is God’s Word? (Okla-homa Ci y, OK: Hear hs one, 1994) and idem,Te Language o he King James Bible (Arava , VA: AVPublica ions, 1998). She goes so ar as o argue



61

even he spelling o he words in he KJV should no be ampered wi h. She has a leng hy l is o words in

he KJV wi h he leter I in he middle o he word bo h Saviour and Luci er have I in he cen er. hisshows, according o Riplinger, how Sa an atemp s ocoun er ei Chris ( Language o he King James Bible ,

85-89).63For reviews o her book see Sam Schnai er, review

o New Age Bible Versions , by G. A. Riplinger, De roi Bap is Seminary Journal 2 (1997):105-26; RoberL. homas, review o New Age Bible Versions , by G. A. Riplinger, he Mas er’s Seminary Journal 5 (Fall1994): 228-32; and H. Wayne House, rev iew o New Age Bible Versions , by G. A. Riplinger,Chris ianResearch Journal17 (1994): 46-48.

64Lim Seng Hoo, “Gail Riplinger, Prophe ess o KJVO- VPP (Verbal Plenary Preserva ion), Exposed,” [ci ed4 April 2011]. Online: htp://www. ru h.sg/Gail%20Riplinger%20Prophe ess%20o %20KJVO-VPP%20Exposed.pd .

65See David Cloud, “Gail Riplinger Lies o Dr. and Mrs.D. A. Wai e,” Way o Li e Li era ure [ci ed 4 April2011]. Online: htp://www.wayoi e.org/les/8de87995956 5b3436295a15442c1b8 -465.h ml.

66David Cloud, “ es imonies o KJV De enders Dr.Donald Wai e,” Way o Li e Li era ure, 2004 [ci ed 5 April 2011]. Online: htp://www.wayoi e.org/da a- base/wai e.h ml.

67 Wai e, De ending he King James Bible , 139.68C . D. A. Wai e, Dean Burgon Socie y Deserves I s Name: en Reasons Why (Collingswood, NJ: DeanBurgon Socie y, 2001); idem,Fundamen alis Dis or-

ions on Bible Versions (Collingswood, NJ: Bible oroday, 1999); and idem,Cen ral Seminary Re u ed on

Bible Versions (Collingswood, NJ: Bible or oday,1999).

69 William P. Grady,Given By Inspira ion: A Mul i ace edS udy on he A.V. 1611 wi h Con emporary Analysis

(Swar z Creek, MI: Grady, 2010), ix .70Grady,Final Au hori y , x (emphasis in he original).71Ibid., viii.72“Shibbole h: Sevens Signs o he Pseudo-King James

Onlyism,” 16 Sep ember 2005 [ci ed 6 April 2011].Online: htp://www.you ube.com/wa ch?v=w_RJd-

Kxvmi8. In he in roduc ion o he sermon, Gradygives his es imony. He indica es he was raised asa Roman Ca holic and became a undamen alisChris ian in 1974 hrough he preaching o Oliver B.Greene, a radio evangelis rom Greenville, SC. A heend o he sermon, Sex on, obviously disquie ed by

wha he had heard, atemp ed o mi iga e some o hemore ex reme s a emen s, including he implica ion

ha God had kil led eodore Le is or cri icizing heKing James Bible! Grady has since called a en ion

o he “apos asy” a Crown. See “More Apos asy aCrown College” [ci ed 6 April 2011]. Online: htp:// www.g rady publ ica ions .com/more -apos as y-a -crown-college.h m.

73Grady,Given By Inspira ion , 42.74Ibid.75Ibid., 43.76Hyles preached a sermon 8 April 1984 en i led “Logic

Mus Prove he King James Bible,” [ci ed 23 Augues2011]. Online: h p://www.biblebelievers.com/Hyles1.h ml.

77Grady recoun ing o he Sex on conic may be oundin Given By Inspira ion , 41-52. he “pinhead ” com-men is on page 48.

78I has been my experience over hir y years ha in heinal analysis, despi e he ac ha many KJV-only

men ry val ian ly o main ain ha he deba e is ul i-ma ely abou he Greek ex underlying he English version, mos o hese same men would never agree

o a new English rendering o he Bible, even rom heex us Recep us.

79I have purpose ully avoided en ering in o his discus-sion a his level or he same reason. While I have a working knowledge o he biblical languages and am

amiliar wi h ex cri ical heories, I wri e as a his-orian. I leave he echnical analysis o o hers more

compe en o judge.80S rouse has published a number o books ha atemp

o se or h a more erudi e approach o he KJV. SeeDavid Cloud, “ es imonies o KJV De enders

homas S rouse,” Way o Li e Li era ure, [ci ed 4 April 2011]. Online: htp://www.wayoi e.org/da a- base/s rouse.h ml. S rouse has writen a number opapers also on he issues. See he ollowing link or a



62

lis and de ai ls: htp://www.emmanuel-newing on.org/seminary/resources/index.php.

81 An example o misin orma ion is Mickey R. Car er,Tings Ta Are Differen Are No he Same (HainesCi y, FL: Landmark, 1993): “Many oreign na ionshave he Bible in heir own language, and many o

hese are ransla ions made direc ly rom he King James Version. Missionaries have ransla ed he King James Version more han a ny o her version . I has been he s andard o ransla e he King James Versionin o o her languages” (84). My seminar y (see no e1) has a branch campus in Romania. Our direc or,a Romanian pas or in Arad since he days o com-munism, irs became acquain ed wi h American

undamen alis s afer he 1989 all o Nicolae Ceaus-escu. He had learned o speak English by wa ching American movies and was recrui ed o help a groupo Americans re ransla e he Bible in o Romanian. When he ound ou ha hey wan ed o ransla e

he KJV in o Romanian, he walked away rom hesilly idea. I have also heard o an a emp o rans-la e he KJV in o French by some French Canadiansinuenced by he KJV-only movemen as well as anatemp o produce a KJV Spanish edi ion. I am alsoaware o effor s o ry and “x” cer ain oreign ver-sions o make hem closer o heex us Recep us orMajori y ex posi ions, bu I canno nd any legi i-ma e, signican oreign rendering o he KJV, houghperhaps here are some. C . Pe er Heisey, “ e Need

o Revise he Cornilescu Romanian Bible,” Bible oroday, [ci ed 4 April 2011]. Online: h p://www.

bible or oday.org/ForeignBibles/romanian_bible.h m. e goal o his la er effor is o revise he exis -ing Romanian version no according o he KJV, buaccording o heex us Recep us.

82I am indeb ed or h is idea rom a paper ha wasdelivered on he KJV a he Baylor Universi y in April2011 by Dr. Lamin Sanneh, a Muslim scholar who

eaches a Yale. See “ he King James Bible and he Vernacular Process,” e K ing James Bible and he World I Made, Baylor Universi y, 7 April 2011.

83Lamin Sanneh, quo ed in Ken Camp, “Chris ian-i y a ‘ ransla ed Religion’ in o Living Word and Writen Word,” pos ed a Associa ed Bap is Press, 21

April 2011 [ci ed 26 June 2011]. Online: htp://www.abpnews.com/con en /view/6340/53/ (accessed 26 June 2011).

84Ibid.



63

Fundamentalism and the KJV

Documents