Saturday, December 21, 2019

Are You a Rebel or a Remnant - given on December 8th at Lake Marburg Baptist Church - sermon notes


         The Bible is the word of God, the written word of God. It is absolutely essential to our sanctification, being set apart for God’s purpose. Its importance cannot be overestimated. But, what is a Bible? Is it a New American Standard Version? A New King James Version? The King James Version? After all, each of them say different things at key points and each of them are translated from different manuscripts with in some cases only slight variations and in others extreme differences.
I believe that the Authorized Version of the Bible, the King James Version, is the preserved word of God and the last of what can truly be called an authentic Bible. If you read it over and over, and I am on my 63rd reading of it, God will use His words to change your heart and mind, not only answering your prayers but giving you a greater understanding of His purpose in your life. This book is my final authority in all matters of faith, practice, and doctrine and that most, if not all, modern Bibles are perversions of God’s word made possible by Satan who, from the beginning, has caused mankind to question what God said. Those of us who still hold to the King James Bible as God’s word in English, or any other language for that matter, are often derided by modern evangelicals as being reactionary and ignorant. Some of your brothers and sisters in Christ might even call you a rebel, and not in a very complimentary way, if they are not mocking your refusal to go along. But, are you are rebel or are you really a remnant, holding on to the faith of your spiritual forebears with regard to God’s words? This series is going to contain some historical information that might seem dry to you but I hope you will pay attention so you know some of the background of why you believed what you believed about the Bible. Take your time and try to understand what you can. It will be helpful for you to know from whence you came in regards to the question of “What is the Bible?”
            Right now we’re going to lay a foundation and get some background on the people and events that led us to where we are. It may seem a bit dry for you but please bear with me. I think this information and this appraisal is important.
A movement began among Independent Baptist churches in 1964 that regarded the King James Bible as the very word of God in print, with all other modern translations being counterfeits and frauds. The founder of the movement, and for decades its most outspoken proponent was Dr. Peter S. Ruckman of the Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Ruckman fired the first salvo in the movement with a book published by his church’s bookstore entitled, Bible Babel. This book was the beginning of a movement that split many Independent Baptist churches apart and struck at the heart of fundamentalism in America. First published in 1964, the book was reprinted in 1981, revised in 1987, and reprinted again in 1994. There are at present approximately one thousand, five hundred congregations in the U.S. and abroad that hold the King James Bible to be their infallible guide in all matters of faith, practice, and doctrine.[1] The central themes of the King James-only Movement are that the King James Bible (KJB), also known as the King James Version (KJV) or the Authorized Version (AV), was inspired by God (or in that Bible’s expression, “given by inspiration”), no less than the original autographs, or is God’s word providentially preserved in English, at the very least, with any Bible translated after 1611 an unreliable substitute or counterfeit.[2] If you believe this there are many Christians who will insist you are being rebellious and are nothing but a divider, working against the gospel of Christ and, in fact, are somewhat of an embarrassment to mainstream evangelicals. But, are you a rebel or are you simply, and more importantly, a remnant, someone standing on the faithfulness of past generations who were responsible for the greatest movement of evangelism since the first century on the truth of the Bible?
            Dr. Ruckman began in his, “Introduction,” to Bible Babel an attack on noteworthy fundamentalists who upheld modern Bibles based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text that resulted from the Anglican revision of the AV completed in 1881. His diatribe against prestigious fundamentalist schools such as Bob Jones University, Tennessee Temple, and Hyles-Anderson was written, not in a scholarly fashion, but in a manner designed to appeal to and be understood by the average church-going Independent Baptist. The central focus of Ruckman’s books was his anger at traditional fundamentalism’s perceived contempt for the Bible whose authority he accepted without question.
            Let’s talk a little about the beginnings of American fundamentalism. In the late 1800s, a series of meetings of conservative Protestant Christians in America began, some of which, being held at Niagara, New York, resulted in them being referred to as the Niagara Conference. The clergy and laymen that attended these meetings are referred to as, “the founding fathers of fundamentalism.”[3] The label, “fundamentalists,” was not coined until 1920 to describe conservative Protestants of varying denominations who were actively militant in defending the basics of what they perceived was orthodox Christian belief.[4]  The term came from a series of essays published in the first decade of the twentieth century as The Fundamentals,  provided free to the Christian public.[5] Noteworthy evangelical R.A. Torrey figured prominently among the authors.
            Fundamentalists rose to national prominence in their involvement in a judicial proceeding in the mid-1920s that is popularly known as, “The Scopes Monkey Trial,” over the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Although it was a legal win for those opposed to evolution being taught, the resultant negative publicity drove fundamentalists further from mainstream America. It resulted in the development of fundamentalist universities such as Bob Jones University, whose faithfulness to the critical text of Westcott and Hort and the inerrancy of the unseen original autographs figured prominently in the origins of the King James-only movement.[6] After the 1920s, fundamentalism ceased to be a powerful political movement and retreated from engagement with the majority of the public who did not share its views. By the 1960s virtually all fundamentalist churches were Baptist.[7]  The movement rose to prominence again in the 1970s with Jerry Falwell’s, “Moral Majority,” and the courting of the movement by the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential effort.[8]
            Fundamentalism, as a movement within conservative Protestant churches, was ultimately made possible by the doctrines set forth early in the Reformation by Martin Luther. Luther’s exchange of the authority to access and interpret Biblical texts from the organization of the Roman Catholic Church to the individual Christian ultimately allowed for the existence and justification of modern Protestant fundamentalism.[9] Luther expressed a new line of thought in opposition generally accepted Christian belief, that took access to Biblical texts and interpretation of them from the priest or an elite consisting of the educated and gave this to the individual Christian. For Luther, every man was a theologian.[10]  
What is the traditional fundamentalist view of the Bible?
The foundational importance of the Bible in Protestantism was expressed very clearly in the seventeenth century by Anglican divine, William Chillingworth, when he declared emphatically, “The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!”[11] In the nineteenth century, Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, in his three volume work  Systematic Theology, stated in 1873, quoting Martin Luther’s 1537 Smallcald Articles, that, “All Protestants agree in teaching that ‘the word of God, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.’”[12]    
Again, this view was affirmed by Baptist theologians in the twentieth century as fundamentalism was moving away from a cross section of conservative Christian denominations and was focused more and more in the Baptist faith tradition. This traditional view of the Bible’s importance in fundamentalism was expressed in an even more extreme manner by Henry Clarence Thiessen in his Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology: “It [what he called the true Church] bases its view on the belief that the Bible is the embodiment of a divine revelation, and that the records which contain that revelation are genuine, credible, canonical, and supernaturally inspired.” [13]
The fundamentalist view of the divine inspiration of the Bible had its origins in the Princeton Seminary, in the nineteenth century. In 1879, a doctrine was expressed that insisted that the original autographs of the presumed Bible writers, and those writings only, were inspired by God, inerrant and infallible.[14]  All subsequent translations attained to varying degrees of reliability and trustworthiness. This allowed a fallback position from the assault on the truth of the Bible narrative by German Biblical criticism and the acceptance of Darwin’s version of the theory of evolution to a Bible that didn’t actually exist in reality, as the original autographs were never in one Bible, and were themselves not extant so they could not be questioned. The mark of fundamentalism in America was a conservative, literal approach to scriptural interpretation and a belief in the divine inspiration of the original autographs with translations being trustworthy but not perfect. It reduced divine inspiration to mere transmission from God to writing on a single occasion.[15] Presbyterian Pastor Archibald Alexander Hodge, son of Princeton Seminary theologian Charles Hodge, wrote in 1863 that what the Bible calls, “given by inspiration,” is revelation, while inspiration referred only to the process of writing an infallible and inerrant document.[16] That this did not include any translation is apparent. American Baptist minister and author Dr. Wayland Hoyt, speaking at a conference held on Biblical inspiration in Philadelphia in 1887, said, “But neither for version nor for manuscripts is Inspiration to be claimed. Inspiration is only to be claimed for the primal sacred autographs …We affirm Inspiration and authority of the original Scriptures, the sacred autographs, but not of the copies or versions.”[17]
But, the King James Bible, says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration and in the only other place where inspiration is mentioned, Job 32:8, states that God’s inspiration gives men understanding. Peter, writing in 2 Peter 3:15, said that Paul wrote by the wisdom given to him, both understanding and wisdom implying God’s revelation of Himself to the writers as well as the wisdom to write. In Jeremiah 36:32 the originals, being burned in a fire, are rewritten, with the addition of many words, so the question of God inspiring only the original autographs is apparent. Which originals? Also, in 2 Timothy 3:16, “all scripture,” is not likely referring to original autographs as it is highly unlikely Timothy had access to the original autographs of Moses’ more than one-thousand-year-old writings but to only copies and translations.
Added into the mix was the effort to revise the AV completed by the Anglican Church’s Bishops Westcott, Hort, and company in 1881, unrelated either to the Niagara Conference or the Princeton Seminary’s thoughts on the inerrancy and infallibility of the original autographs. New manuscript discoveries of a non-Biblical nature that were believed to shed light on the original Bible languages and dissatisfaction with the perceived archaic English of the Authorized Version led to the Anglican Church’s 1881 Revision of the King James Bible. The Revision was the first effort in two hundred and fifty years with any Anglican Church authority behind it to revise the King James Version.[18]
            Plans for a revision of the AV were in the works since at least 1820, when Anglican Bishop Herbert Marsh, in a lecture on the interpretation of the Bible at Cambridge, published in 1828, called for it as necessary.[19] This struggle to have the idea of a revision seen through happened in fact, even though many, such as philologist and pioneering American environmental conservationist, George Perkins Marsh, said that a multitude of Bibles would result from such a revision, dividing Protestantism and causing more harm than good .[20] The Revision committee, laboring for over a decade, published its work in 1881. The Revision efforts consisted of an English committee headed by Anglican bishops Westcott and Hort, and an American committee headed by Bible scholar and historian, Philip Schaff.
            The resultant Revised Version of the Bible and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version, were not so much revisions of the Authorized Version but new versions of the Bible based on an entirely new background text for the New Testament and a departure from the traditional Old Testament text. The effort did not escape criticism. John Burgon, a noted expert on Greek language and manuscripts, panned the revision efforts in writing in 1883. He wrote, “…’the New Greek Text,’ – which, in defiance of their instructions, the Revisionists of the ‘Authorized English Version’ had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating, - was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning to end….”[21]  Philip Schaff, the head of the American revision committee, acknowledged that one reason for the difficulty the new text had in being favorably received was that “for the great mass of English readers King James’ Version is virtually the inspired Word of God.” [22]
            Nevertheless, fundamentalists in America took to the new versions of the Bible quite readily. Evangelist R.A. Torrey wrote that, in his estimation, “the Revised Version is manifestly much more exact,” than the Authorized Version.[23]  It was not until another contributor to The Fundamentals, lawyer Philip Mauro, began to express serious reservations about the Revised Version’s background text in the early 1920s that fundamentalism began to break down into two camps on the Bible translation issue. One camp followed the Westcott-Hort Greek text (representing the Alexandrian line of manuscripts) and the Bibles that flowed from it such as the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and later the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, etc., with the second camp using and uplifting the Textus Receptus, in English the Received Text. This was the traditional textual line of manuscripts, called the Byzantine, that were the background texts for the Authorized Version, with that Bible version simply being considered, not inspired, but the most trustworthy translation of an inspired Greek text.  Although the Old Testament text was also different it was not usually the subject of much argument until later. Both parties felt that their version of the Greek text was representative of the originals, which only were given by inspiration of God. Translations were reliable, trustworthy, or, in the case of the Authorized Version, the best, but most definitely not inspired by God and merely the devoted work of skilled and faithful translators. The battle within fundamentalism was not over the authority of the Bible but over the question, “What is the Bible?”  
            This is a fundamental question for you. Remember what God has said about his words.

Psalm 138: 2  I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
John 17:17 ¶  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
            Next, Peter Ruckman throws a monkey wrench into the wheel of fundamentalism in America with regards to the Bible.        
Peter Ruckman’s autobiography: The Full Cup provided a great deal of valuable information about his background and insights into his combative nature. Ruckman was the son of a U.S. Army officer whose father and grandfather were both graduates from West Point and who rose to the rank of Colonel by the time World War II began.[24] Peter Ruckman himself became an officer in the U.S. Army and taught hand to hand combat during World War II although he never saw any actual fighting. During his service time he experimented with Buddhism and after his military service he began the process of becoming a Roman Catholic. This ended with his conversion to fundamentalist and Baptist religious beliefs in 1949.

            He was drawn to the staunchly fundamentalist Bob Jones University (BJU) in 1949. Ruckman was “saved” by a preacher using a King James Bible, but found that at Bob Jones University, that Bible’s accuracy and credibility were downplayed, although it was used in public services. He also realized that BJU preferred the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, which is also known as the Critical Text. As he became more acquainted with the school’s teaching, he found himself more at odds with their philosophy. Finally, although he chose to stay and get his PhD, he accepted that staunchly fundamentalist BJU was too liberal, in his mind, in what they regarded as the words of God.
            Ruckman eventually became a pastor for Baptist churches in Pensacola, Florida and developed a ministry of chalk drawings and evangelistic preaching, eventually leading the Bible Baptist Church on JoJo Road. He published Bible Babel in 1964, manifesting his utter contempt for the traditional fundamentalist view of the Bible. In 1965 he founded the Pensacola Bible Institute to train preachers in his doctrinal views. Ruckman’s church bookstore produced thousands of cassette tapes, books, and eventually CD’s and MP3’s that became very popular as the controversy he started continued to grow and many churches adopted his point of view.
Bible Babel
            The opening salvo of the King James-only Movement was an attack on the belief that only the original autographs were inspired. This original Bible containing the original manuscripts of the authors, of course, never actually existed, in fact. It was more of an ideal, as no one has ever claimed that there was a Bible anywhere at any time in history that contained the original writings of Moses and Paul. Attacking several prominent fundamentalist Baptists, Ruckman exclaimed, “The term ‘Word of God’ used by Bob Jones, Jr., Bob Jones III, Robert Sumner, Custer, Neal, McCrae, Newman, Panosian, Wisdom, Alfman, Prince, Price, and John R. Rice is never a reference to any book that anyone on earth has ever read.” [25]
            The primary manuscripts referred to in most modern Bible versions as the oldest or the best are principally the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. These manuscripts are known as Alexandrian text type and were assigned the most authority by the Westcott-Hort Greek text translators. This text has been the basis for virtually all other Greek texts used for Bible translating for more than a century.[26]  Ruckman referred to those fundamentalists who followed the Alexandrian textual line of manuscripts as expressed in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the Bibles produced from it as the, “Alexandrian Cult.” [27]
            One of the characteristics of Dr. Ruckman’s writings was his strong anti-Catholic bias. Ruckman viewed a Roman Catholic conspiracy behind the newer Bible translations. He accused modern translators and fundamentalists of attacking the Reformation Bibles by using Roman Catholic translations. He wrote that “The readings of the ASV and the NASV are the readings of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate where they match the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582.” [28] It is interesting to note that the authorities he mentions after that statement as having revealed this information decades before his writing were not devoted to the perfection of the King James Bible as he was. In fact, one important author, Dr. Edward F. Hills, expert in textual criticism, graduate summa cum laude from Yale and graduate of Westminster and Columbia Theological Seminaries, as well as Harvard University, published his tome, The King James Version Defended, in 1956, which although often quoted by King James-only advocates, only went so far as saying that “it is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy,” while upholding the Textus Receptus over the text produced by the Anglican Revision.[29]  Ruckman’s accusations implied that the traditional fundamentalist was an agent of Rome as he noted, “the FACT that the ASV and the NASV (as well as the RSV and the NRSV) are in line with the official Bible of Rome; they are not revisions of the King James Version,” and referred to anyone who promoted those Bibles as a, “PAPIST.”[30]
            Ruckman went on to accuse the Anglican revisionists of being, “Puseyites,” a reference to Anglican divine, Edward Pusey, which meant to Ruckman that they were part of the contingent of nineteenth century Anglicans who desired reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.[31]  The conflict within the nineteenth century Anglican Church regarding that church’s relationship to the Roman Catholic Church resulted in several defections of Anglican clergy to the Roman Catholic Church.[32]
Ruckman’s “Introduction” to Bible Babel concluded with Ruckman’s take on the controversial verses of Psalms 12:6, 7 in the King James Bible, stating that they established a doctrine of God’s promise to providentially preserve His words.[33] This would become one of the pillars upon which the King James-only Movement would rest. The insistence that God not only gave words by inspiration as noted in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that these words were preserved by God throughout the centuries in faithful copies and translations was fundamental to the movement’s arguments.[34]  His arguments for the authority of the King James Bible also included his statement that the translators rejected Roman Catholic readings in many verses, that the translators made no effort to uphold Roman Catholic doctrines such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, and that at the time of the translation no minister of any pulpit that believed in the Trinity (the three part personage of God) denied the deity of Jesus Christ.[35]
            Dr. Ruckman did not express the most radical version of the King James-only believers’ belief: that foreign language versions should be translated directly from the King James Bible.[36] Translating into foreign languages directly from the King James Bible had been a practice in some historical contexts in America but was hardly a universal position among late twentieth century King James-only adherents.  Ruckman acknowledged that it was acceptable for missionaries to use foreign language versions that were based in the same Greek text that the Authorized Version was, even if their publication preceded that version, and even if there were differences in the wording - an allowance he refused to grant to versions newer than the King James.[37]

            Ruckman made several other points in his polemic against modern Bible versions which included the KJV translators’ use of italics when they inserted words that were not present in a Greek manuscript for the purpose of grammatical sense, or inserting a word found in Hebrew but not present in a Greek text that quoted a Hebrew verse. Ruckman complained that many modern versions did not include italicized words which, to him, made the translators of the AV more honest and trustworthy.[38] Another point Ruckman made was the lack of a copyright for the KJV, which is something that modern Bibles carry in that, presumably, one would have to get the publisher’s permission to copy large parts of their work. The “crown copyright,” which the King James Bible carries, does not affect its use or reproduction.[39]  To Ruckman and his followers, these arguments against modern Bible versions bolstered the AV’s credibility.

            One of the more interesting arguments that King James-only proponents made was Ruckman’s declaration that the King James Bible exalted Jesus Christ more than modern versions do.  In fact, he accused Bible translators of the versions based in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of downgrading Christ’s status as God in the flesh. Ruckman accused the translators of the new versions, particularly those published since the Revised Version, as not only following the Roman Catholic editions but even following Mormon belief as well as the errors of early church fathers, Eusebius and Origen. He linked modern Bible versions to the doctrines of the Arians who did not believe in the deity of Christ.[40]  Ruckman’s exaltation of the King James Bible included the statement, “We are saying that the King James Bible is true to the exaltation of Jesus Christ….[and] puts Jesus up where He belongs in God’s sight,” insisting that modern Bible versions do not.[41]

            Ruckman alluded to a book by J.J. Ray entitled God Only Wrote One Bible, which, like the Edward Hills book mentioned previously was not written by a King James-only proponent.[42] Ray promoted the Textus Receptus above the work of the Anglican Revision of 1881 and insisted that the Bible was preserved in that Greek text from which the AV was translated.[43]  Ray had plagiarized an earlier book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, written by Seventh-Day Adventist professor, Benjamin Wilkinson, in which, he, Professor Wilkinson, declared that the, “original Scriptures were written by direct inspiration of God,” and that any Bible translated faithfully from the Textus Receptus was the, “Word of God.” [44]  It was a common practice of Ruckman and others in the movement in the beginning to quote as authorities to underscore their own viewpoint those who uplifted the Textus Receptus as God’s inspired words, even if those authorities did not hold up the King James Bible as anything but a reliable or the most reliable English expression of that Greek manuscript line.

Was There A King James-only Movement before Bible Babel?

            The head of the ASV translating committee and noted Christian historian, Philip Schaff, acknowledged the assumption made by many that the King James Bible or Authorized Version was virtually the inspired word of God.  However, this assumption by some Christians of the authority of the King James Bible was based on it being the translation most readily available to them, and not on any understanding of the differences in opinion on the translation of Greek words or manuscript evidence. Still, King James-only proponents use any statement about the authority of the “English Bible” in historical context in the same way they quote scholars and laymen who upheld the King James Bible as the most reliable translation of the traditional text, as supporting their position. For example, KJV-only believer Joey Faust, in his book entitled The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement, refers to an apocryphal conversation that seventeenth century Protestant noteworthy, John Bunyan, allegedly had with a scholar who insisted that a knowledge of the original languages was essential to understanding the Bible. Bunyan expressed his belief that he had access to the originals through the Bible he used. “’Then,’ said Mr. Bunyan, ‘so do I believe our English Bible is a true copy of the original.’” [45]
            A second example used by Faust was that of the church to which nineteenth century scientist, Michael Faraday, belonged. This church was founded by eighteenth century theologian, Robert Sandeman, the son-in-law of controversial Scottish nonconformist preacher John Glas. Faust uses quotations by Glas from his own works, implying that the Scot was an ardent King James-only Pastor and that, therefore, the church founded by Robert Sandeman was an example of an early King James-only church.[46]  What Glas expressed in his own work in an argument about the value of the original languages was the belief in the predominant English Bible of his time (the King James Bible) as an authority in direct contraposition to the Roman Catholic Church giving it equal standing in importance to Protestant people as the Church at Rome was to Catholic. “Or, are you indeed for the people’s believing in your church, instead of their English Bible?” he wrote.[47]  The English Bible’s presumed superiority to the originals lay in its accessibility to the common man and not to any argument of superior translating methods or abilities or even arguments of manuscript credibility.
            While the expression of the superiority of the King James Bible to the original autographs, manuscripts, or even languages was based on the fact that the KJV, unlike the latter, was available to the common man this in no way implies the same type of perfection the King James-only proponents claim for it. The basis for the belief in the authority of the King James Bible before the KJV-only Movement was expressed very clearly by George Holden in his 1822 work, An Attempt to Illustrate the Book of Ecclesiastes, where he advised against any revision to the Authorized Version due to the position it held.
While rival scholars would support their several systems with the stubbornness of preconceived opinion, the belief of well-meaning, but illiterate, minds would be liable to be shaken by a change in what they have been accustomed to revere as the standard of their faith. The style and phraseology of the authorized version have become venerable; it has acquired a sacredness of character by being handed down, for two centuries, from father to son, as the Word of God; its very errors are, in a manner, consecrated by the reverential respect of the people; and it is not likely that any superior accuracy would, in the present feverish state of public opinion, compensate for the dangers of innovation.[48]
            Ruckman implied in his autobiography The Full Cup that J. Frank Norris was a precursor to himself in the King James-only movement, but as there are no extant sermons of J. Frank Norris extolling the virtues of the King James Bible.  It is only because of Ruckman’s memory in distinguishing between the types of fundamentalists he met in his work that he wrote, “the Texans were the independent, Premillennial, J. Frank Norris, King James Bible crowd. I quickly made up my mind which side of the fence to get on.” [49]  One traditional fundamentalist author noted in his arguments against Ruckman’s view that based on his own research, J. Frank Norris “ascribed inerrancy only to the original language Scriptures…,”and that “he did not believe that the King James Version was either a perfect translation or the only acceptable English translation.” [50]
The King James Bible and its authority in the minds of Protestant believers can be set against the scholarly belief in the authority of original manuscripts and languages based on its common usage. This is not the same thing as saying that the KJV is a superior or divinely inspired translation not only based on its common usage, but on its presumed perfection and accuracy. Modern Bible versions are translated with the authority and credibility given to the Alexandrian textual line of manuscripts. Ruckman argued that the Syrian or Byzantine textual line, from which the KJV was translated, was superior. He claimed that not only was it the dominant textual line of the Middle Ages, but that it represented the Greek Vulgate of the first and second centuries, of which the only examples extant are in the writings of the early church fathers.[51]  Ruckman also went into relatively great detail on the differences in the translation of individual words and phrases between the King James Bible and modern translations, asserting the accuracy of the former over the latter. Ruckman’s arguments then were a far cry from and more complex than simple devotion to a Bible commonly used and revered by Protestants. By this the unique character of the King James-only Movement in history is clear: there was no movement of this sort before Ruckman.
Ruckman differed from fundamentalists who extolled the virtue of the Byzantine text as being inspired. Those fundamentalists held the King James Bible as it’s most accurate and authoritative English representative. Fundamentalist preachers who use only the King James may still believe that it is merely the best translation of an inspired Greek text but not bearing any particular stamp of divine inspiration itself. Ruckman challenged that notion.
            Dr. Ruckman stated his belief that the King James Bible was God’s inerrant, preserved, and inspired word in English in several ways in his 1964 publication entitled Bible Babel. He attacked the fundamentalist doctrine of the inspiration of the original manuscripts only, he called those fundamentalists who followed the Westcott-Hort critical text a “cult”, he accused those fundamentalists and the Anglican revisers of the King James of being agents of the Roman Catholic Church whose purpose was to subvert the Protestant’s faith in the Bible; he uplifted the controversial doctrine that God had promised to preserve His words in the Bible with the implication that those words were contained in the Authorized Version, and, among other things, declared that the King James Version exalted Jesus Christ more than modern versions of the Bible did.
            There is no historical precedent to the movement that Dr. Ruckman started. The authors that he and those who agreed with him quoted often were not King James-only. These authors, such as Dr. Edward Hills or J.J. Ray or Benjamin Wilkinson, wrote that the Textus Receptus or traditional Greek manuscript textual line, also called the Byzantine text, best represented God’s inspired originals, with the King James being simply the best translation. Other historical figures, churches, and the general Protestant public believed in the divine authority of the Authorized Version because it was available to them in a way that the original manuscripts and languages were not, and that its authority was established by tradition and common usage.
            Finally, the King James-only Movement, while being birthed in Protestant, particularly Baptist, fundamentalism, was a departure from the traditional fundamentalist view of Biblical inspiration. It was a modern rejection of the doctrine established by the Princeton Theological Seminary and embraced by most fundamentalists regarding the unique authority of the original autographs of the Bible. It also dismissed the Anglican Revision of the AV and the modern science of textual criticism as products of the Roman Catholic Church and its supporters in attacking the authority and veracity of the traditional Bible. The King James-only Movement, as such, did not exist in writing before 1964 and the publication of Peter S. Ruckman’s Bible Babel.
Next, I’ll tell you why I am “King James-only” and why you should be, too.
From 1967 until 2002 one of the prominent editors of the United Bible Societies translating committee was Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. Think about that for just a minute. Let it soak in. An important member of the organization that creates 80% of the world’s Bibles was a Jesuit priest, once even thought of as a candidate for pope. The United Bible Societies includes the American Bible Society, best known for The Good News translation and the Contemporary English Version. Without accusation, just asking, do you believe that there is no Roman Catholic influence in modern Protestant Bibles? The online catechism of the Catholic Church uses quotations from the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The Revised Standard Version was a revision of the American Standard Version from a translating committee led by Philip Schaff, mentioned previously. His version was the American version of Westcott and Hort’s Revised Version, beloved by the fundamentalists of the era of the publication of The Fundamentals and applauded in those essays as the most accurate Bible.
            Without being as bold as Ruckman and leaving out a lot of other evidence what do you think is most likely? Many of you will say, “what difference does it make?” As I quoted previously the Bible is the foundation to Protestant belief, and the Bible only. The Roman Catholic Church places the opinions of its men of letters, the “Doctors of the Church,” Popes, and tradition on an equal par with the Bible or even higher. That puts an important division between myself and them regarding the question we are pursuing here regarding the Bible. I cannot regard Augustine or Pope John Paul II on an equal par with Jeremiah or Paul. But, let’s move on.
            Modern evangelical scholar Eugene Nida, of the American Bible Society, classified translating types. The King James Bible is considered as translated using “Formal Equivalence” or word-for-word translating trying to maintain not only what the words actually mean but even the grammar and syntax of the original languages. Modern Bibles are translated using “Dynamic Equivalence,” a sense-for-sense translation using the translators’ opinions, world-view, biases, and prejudices to render what they think or want you to think is what the text actually means rather than what it actually says. Think about that for a few minutes. Just wrap your mind around it.
            The King James translators were the finest minds of their time and secular scholars like Olga Opfell and Adam Nicolson in books like The King James Bible Translators and God’s Secretaries have affirmed this was so and that the King James Bible was produced at a unique point in history and was a project that could not have been made, in their estimations, at any other time. Secular scholars who contributed to the Harvard Literary Guide to the Bible expressed how faithful it was to the grammar and syntax of the manuscripts from which it was translated. Many others have confirmed how important that Bible was to the development of the English language.
            The way it is designed and constructed is incredible and I would say beyond human planning. For instance, in most cases if you look at words connected by the word and you will typically find their meaning in synonyms. By looking at this verse can you tell me what a cumbrance is?

Deuteronomy 1:12  How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?

It is a burden, a hindrance, and an impediment, a burdensome strife. On rare occasions and does not contact words with synonymous meanings in context but links opposites, antonyms, as in the following.

Philppians 4:12  I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

At other times, words that might be difficult for us today are defined by looking at the words surrounding them in other passages nearby. In this example I want to point out that the word eschew is not that uncommon today as I even read it in a sports article online not long ago. Its just that we don’t normally use it in everyday speech.

1Peter 3:10  For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11  Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

So, you see eschew means in this context to refrain one’s tongue from evil
There are italicized words that denote the editors filling in a word that is not found in one language but is clearly meant to be there by comparison to a Bible quote from another language although that’s not the only usage of italicized words. Here, I italicize Bible verses I’m using anyway so you will need to look at a King James Bible to see this.

Deuteronomy 8:3  And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

In this verse word is italicized, meaning that it is not literally in the Hebrew text but is implied. How can you know they understood at the time of Jesus that word should be in that verse? Well, because it is provided in the Greek text from which the New Testament came.

Matthew 4:4  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Italicized words are important. To include them is honest and to exclude them is deceitful.
Sometimes the Bible defines words by word substitution. This provides us the meaning the Holy Spirit wanted from the context. In the following Jesus is quoting from the prophet Isaiah. When you compare the two verses you can see by word substitution that, in the contexts, gospel means good tidings or good news, the poor are the meek, along with other concepts that require a study of their own to understand.

Luke 4:18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61: 1 ¶  The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;2  To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

But, besides the mechanics, the way it is constructed for our learning, our edification, reading and believing the Bible can keep us from sin.
Psalm 119:11  Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
The Bible says in Philippians 2:10, 11;
10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But, yet, God’s words have been placed above God’s name.
Psalm 138:2  I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Jesus said that God’s word was truth itself by which we are sanctified or set apart for
 God’s purpose.

John 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

So, tell me, if you believe this is so, when a modern critic picks up this Bible that was translated the most faithfully from the manuscripts and early versions of the Bible most prevalent in the first fifteen centuries of the faith and says, “a better rendering of this word would be,” how can you trust him when these critics also say about their own translating efforts and the lexicons, or Greek dictionaries, which they use to get their definitions in the book, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography;
“The fact is that opinions will very often differ over the precise wording of lexical definitions even - or perhaps, especially - after careful consideration of a proposed definition.”

“…there is the fact that even the latest lexicons derive their material from their predecessors, and a great deal of it has been passed on uncritically over the course of centuries.”

“…we cannot know for certain that what we find in front of us when we look up a word is sound.”

“…all the existing lexical entries in all our dictionaries are now obsolete and await reassessment in the light of the full evidence, or at least checking to see if there is further evidence to be added.”

“Lexicons are regarded by their users as authoritative, and they put their trust in them. Lexicons are reference books presenting a compressed, seemingly final statement of fact, with an almost legal weight. The mere fact that something is printed in a book gives it authority, as far as most people are concerned. And understandably: if one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the only means of rescue from ignorance. Yet this trust is misplaced.”

Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton &Richard E. Whitaker, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker
And I’m supposed to pick up a modern Bible version that provides me with nuggets of “truth” like 1982’s the New King James Version, which is neither new nor is it King James.
Matthew 11:3 and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”
The Coming One, capitalized, is a title given to a new-age messiah to come by the Satanist, Alice Bailey in the 1940s. What does the King James Version say, translated faithfully from its foundational documents?
Matthew 11:3  And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
There is a huge difference between asking if Jesus was the predicted Jewish messiah to come and asking if He was a new-age, Satanic avatar, no different than Buddha or Mohammed, sent to enlighten mankind and urge him a little further on the way to enlightenment. Maybe the New King James Version translators weren’t aware of this connection. Well, if I’m aware of it and I’m not an expert in anything, I’m pretty sure they were.
How can I trust modern versions translated based on dynamic equivalence, telling me what I should think rather than just laying it out for me truthfully, when the Holman Christian Standard Bible deletes the majority of a very important verse in 1John 5:7 which reads in the KJV like this?

1John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And by the way, author Michael Maynard in his A History of the Debate Over 1John 5:7-8 pointed out very carefully how this verse was either quoted or alluded to in every century of Christianity. Where is it in your Bible?
How can I take your modern version like 1978’s New International Version seriously when at Mark 16:9-20 you have this note, “[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]” Really? I’ve read that of the 620 capital letter manuscripts call uncials that have this part of Mark in them 618 have the last twelve verses of Mark. 618 out of 620. Scholars like John Burgon even wrote a book entitled The Last Twelve Verses of Mark proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the traditional ending is the right one. Only the darlings of the modernists, the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, whose phoniness would take an entire sermon to discuss, don’t have them. So, I’m supposed to believe you when you rip out of the Bible;

Mark 16:9 ¶  Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10  And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11  And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12  After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13  And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

    14 ¶  Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

    19 ¶  So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

So, when Philip is talking to the Ethiopian eunuch and the court official asks him if there is a reason why he shouldn’t be baptized the following takes place.
Acts 8:36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.   
So, why does your New American Standard Bible have a footnote saying, “Acts 8:37 Early mss do not contain this verse” when it is found in the earliest complete Bible, the Old Latin, from the second century, and quoted by church “fathers” like Irenaeus in the same century, and others later like, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine. Should two manuscripts of disputed credibility, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the modern scholars who love them, be allowed in your head, saying, “Yea, hath God said?” (See Genesis 3). What’s going on here really?
What about the Old Testament? The King James Old Testament, representing the Second Great Rabbinic Bible compiled many Old Testament manuscripts, versus the modern Old Testament text complied by Rudolf Kittel, father of Nazi apologist Gerhard Kittel, found in many fundamentalist pastors’ libraries.
The Old Testament text was settled before the King James translators began their work based on many, many manuscripts while modern translations give credence to Kittel’s work, based primarily on one manuscript, the Leningrad Codex.
Are you seeing a pattern here? The common usage of the Bible for two thousand years, thousands of manuscripts, writings of the early church fathers, and ancient versions on one hand, The King James Bible; and on the other hand, three questionable manuscripts; Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Leningrad. Based on the latter you want me to give up my Bible. Right.
Now, let me tell you something. I’m on my 63rd reading of the KJV. It compels you to read it over and over again, maybe not as obsessively as me, but you should have read it for at least as many times as the years you’ve been a Christian if you believe it is God’s book. I ask you how many times you’ve read or listened to your NKJV, NIV, HCSB, or NASB? Maybe you have gone through them cover to cover but most people I talk to haven’t even read the Bible through from cover to cover one time. I guess it tough when some verses are just missing.
This Bible changed my life. It reproved me of sin, comforted me, exhorted me, and edified me. It made me a different person than who I was before I believed that it was what God wanted us to have. I’ve only given you one or two examples of dozens so as not to get bogged down in why I believe modern translating attitudes and modern methods, lexicons, etc. are wrong in their attack on the Bible I use and that, more importantly, uses me.
I am not a scholar. I oversimplified things because they are very simple. We have a Bible that has come down to us from our spiritual ancestors as the authoritative, definitive word of God. We have modernists who want to make us question its truthfulness and even abandon it. What I’m telling you is they ‘got no game.’ Their arguments are the empty and vain ramblings of men and women, mostly men, who want to place the thought in your head, mimicking Satan’s own words.
Yea, hath God said?
The modern, particularly, evangelical scholar sets up two competing authorities; your Bible and his. Then, he encourages you to settle the issue with his opinion, which, as I said, isn’t worth much. I’m just a regular person but if you are going to convince me that the Bible that put me here right here writing every day about God’s word, exploring it, studying it, loving it, is wrong then you’re going to have to do better than you’ve done.
The King James translators wrote a letter to the reader which is no longer published in most KJVs, which is unfortunate. In it they praise the power of the Bible. Here is a short excerpt of what was written;
 But now what piety without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John 5:39. Isa 8:20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts 17:11 and 8:28,29. They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe them. Matt 22:29. Luke 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us.
They hammered out and revised and worked for long years to produce the greatest Bible the world has ever known using the Greek texts used by the majority of Christians for over a thousand years compiled by scholars from hundreds of manuscripts. This Traditional Text or Majority Text became known after the KJV was published as the Textus Receptus, Latin for the ‘text we have received’. This Received Text agrees with the earliest Bible versions like the Syriac Peshitta, the old Latin Vulgate, and the Italic Bible from the second century. They compared their work with the work of other translators, the Traditional Text compiled by Erasmus and others, Bibles in other European languages and ancient languages, and they revised and studied and revised and studied their own work. Some commentators, studying the method that the KJV translators used have said that each verse in that Bible was reviewed 14 times.
Modern Bibles are different because they are translated from different manuscripts, called the Minority Text. Supposedly, they say, it is the true text rediscovered by the Westcott-Hort committee. So, what they are telling us that the Bible was lost from 500AD to 1880. Do you really believe that? Or is something else going on?
I want to close with something I said earlier, This Bible changed my life. It reproved me of sin, comforted me, exhorted me, and edified me. It made me a different person than who I was before I believed that it was what God wanted us to have. I will continue to trust it and to believe it is God’s word for us, providentially preserved. I hope you will consider what I’ve said spoken and written from the point of view, not of a scholar or even particularly bright person, but from someone who stands on a rock and will not be removed from it.

                                                                    Bibliography
Ault, James M. Jr. Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamental Baptist Church. New York:
Random House, 2004.

            Accessed 1.1.2014.
Biggers, Don H. “J. Frank Norris: Salvation Specialist.” pp-69-76. A Report of the Rev. J.  
               Frank  Norris’ Trial. Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1927.
              Courtesy, The Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
                                                                             
Burgon, John William. Preface to The Revision Revised. 1883 reprint, New York: Dover
Publications, 1971.

Butler, Jon. Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People .Cambridge, MA: 
            Harvard University Press, 1990.
Chennault, Claire Lee. Way of a Fighter: The Memoirs of Claire Lee 
            Chennault, edited by Robert B. Holtz. New York: G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1949.

Chillingworth, William. The Religion of Protestants: A Safe Way to Salvation. 1638, 
            reprinted. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1846.

Laurier University Press,  2008.


Epp, Eldon Jay. Foreward to The Greek New Testament by B.F. Westcott & F.J.A Hort  
             Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.

Faust, Joey. The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible
            Only Movement. Venus, TX: Fundamental Books. Kindle Edition, 2011.

Gill, John. Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. 1810 reprint, OSNOVA, 2012. Psalm
             12:6-7. Kindle Edition.


Glas, John. The Works of Mr. John Glas in Four Volumes. Edinburgh; Alexander
             Donaldson, 1761.

Glines, Carroll V. & General James H. “Jimmy” Doolittle.  I Could Never Be So Lucky
              Again. New York: Bantam Books, 1991.

Goff, Philip, Arthur Farnsley III, & Peter Thuesen. The Bible in American Life. Indianapolis, IN:
            The Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue 
            University, 2014.

Grady, William P.  Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible.  
             Knoxville, TN: Grady Publications, 1993.

Graves, J.R. Old Landmarkism: What is it? 1880, reprinted. Texarkana, TX: Bogard Publishing, 
             1980.
Griswold, A.W.  The Far Eastern Policy of the United States. New York: Harcourt, Brace,    
              & Co. Inc, 1938.

Haldeman-Julius, Marcet.  “J. Frank Norris: The Shooting Salvationist.” pp. 5-22. A Report
              Of the Rev. J. Frank Norris’ Trial. Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1927.
              Courtesy, The Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Hankins, Barry. God’s Rascal: J. Frank Norris and the Beginnings of Southern
             Fundamentalism. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1996.

Harding, Susan Friend. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics.
              Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Harmon, Kate. “Pastor Who Pushed Free Speech Dies.” York Sunday News. January 6, 2013. 1A.

Heisey, Peter.  “The Value of Making a Bible Translation from the King James Holy   
             Bible.” Worcestor, UK: Time for Truth Christian Literature, 2013.
             Accessed 1.1.2014.
Henry, Matthew. Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible. 1706 Reprint, Christian Miracle  
             Foundation Press, 2011. Psalm 12:6-7. Kindle edition.
Heyrman, Christine.  Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt. Chapel Hill: The
            University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. 1956 Reprint, Ankeny IA: Christian  
             Research  Press, 1984.

Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology. New York: Robert Carter & Bros, 1863.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 1873. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
             1940. Kindle edition.


Holden, George. “Preliminary Dissertation.” An Attempt to Illustrate the Book of 
             Ecclesiastes. London, F.C. & J. Rivington, 1822.

Howard, Robert Glenn. "The Double Bind of the Protestant Reformation: The Birth of 
             Fundamentalism and the Necessity of Pluralism." Journal Of Church & State 47, no. 1 
             (Winter2005): 91-108.

Hoyt, Wayland. “Questions Concerning Inspiration.” In The Inspired Word: A Series of
Papers and Addresses Delivered at the Bible Inspiration-Conference, Philadelphia, 1887, edited by A.T. Pierson. New York: Anson D.F. Randolph & Co, 1888.

King, Paul L. "Premillennialism and the Early Church." in Essays in Premillennialism,   
             eds. K. Neill Foster and David E. Fessenden. Camp Hill, Pa.: Christian Publications,  
             2002. 1-12.


Kutilek, Doug.  J. Frank Norris and His Heirs: The Bible Translation Controversy.
             Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1999.

Leonard, Bill J. “Independent Baptists: From Sectarian Minority to ‘Moral Majority’.” Church
History. Vol. 56, No. 4 (Dec., 1987). pp. 504 – 517.

Marsden, George. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids,             
            MI.:Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing, 1991.

Marsh, George P. Lectures on the English Language. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885.

Marsh, Herbert S. Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. London: J. 
              Smith, 1828.

Mauro, Philip. Which Version: Authorized or Revised. Boston, MA: Scripture Truth Depot, 1924.
Moorhead, James H. “The Erosion of Postmillennialism in American Religious Thought,
              1865-1925.” Church History 53, no. 1 (March 1984): 61-77.

Mundell, Charles  S. “Some Side-Lights on J. Frank Norris.” pp-77-79. A Report of the
              Rev. J. Frank Norris’ Trial. Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1927.
              Courtesy, The Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.


Nockles, Peter B. The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship,
             1760-1857. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Norris, J. Frank. “Truman Letters.” Southern Baptist Historical Library & Archive.
             http://www.sbhla.org/downloads/124.pdf

Norris, George L. “The Laborer Has Rested from His Labors, But the Work He Did Still Lives 
On.” Memorial for J. Frank Norris. J. Frank Norris Historical Society. vol. IV, no. 3, October 23, 1972. http://jfranknorris.org/books/1972_Memorial_for_J_Frank_Norris.pdf.
Pew Research Center. “Religious Landscape Survey.” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.  

Philip, Robert. The Life, Times & Characteristics of John Bunyan: Author of the Pilgrim’s 
            Progress. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1839.

Ray, Jasper James (J.J.). God Only Wrote One Bible. Eugene, OR: The Eye Opener
             Publishers, 1955.


Riplinger, Gail. In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its Mystery & 
            History Letter By Letter. Ararat, Va.: A.V. Publications, 2003.

Ruckman, Peter S. Bible Babel. Pensacola, FL: Bible Believer’s Press, 1964.
Ruckman, Peter S. The Full Cup: A Chronicle of Grace. Pensacola, FL: Bible  
             Baptist Bookstore, 1992.

Sandeen, Ernest. “Toward an Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism.”
            Church History. Vol. 36, no. 1 (March 1967). pp. 66-83.

Schaff, David S. The Life of Schaff: In Part Autobiographical. New York: Charles Scribner  
             & Son, 1897.

Schaff, Philip. A Companion to the Greek New Testament  and the English Version. New
             York: Harper & Bros, 1883.

Smillie, Dirk. Falwell, Inc: Inside a Political, Religious, Educational, and Business
             Empire. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008.

Tansil, Charles Callan. Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941.
             Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1952

Thiessen, Henry Clarence.  Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids,
             MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949

Torrey, R.A. What the Bible Teaches. New York: Fleming H. Revell & Co., 1898

Trembath, Kern Robert. Evangelical Theories of Divine Inspiration: A Review and
             Proposal.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. 

Welch, Robert. The Life of John Birch: In the Story of One American Boy, the Ordeal of
His Age.Washington, DC: Henry Regnery Company, 1954.

White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?
             Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

Wickens, Stephen B. The Life of John Bunyan, Author of Pilgrim’s Progress. New York:  
             J. Collard, 1845.
                                                                             
Wilkinson, Benjamin G.  Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Payson, AZ: Leaves of Autumn
             Books, 1930.




                             [1] “Bible Believers’ Church Directory,” Bible Believers. Accessed 1.1.2014,  www.biblebelievers.com.

                             [2] 2 Tm 3:16 ; Jb 32:8 AV
                             [3] Ernest Sandeen, “Toward an Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism,” Church History 36, no. 1 (March 1967): 72.
                             [4] James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamental Baptist Church (New York:
Random House, 2004), 372.
                             [5] Sandeen 77.
[6]  Elijah G. Dann, Leaving Fundamentalism: Personal Stories (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, 2008) 7.
                             [7] George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids,              MI.:Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing, 1991), 3.
[8] James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamental Baptist Church (New York:
Random House, 2004),1 & 6 .

                             [9] Robert Glenn Howard, "The Double Bind of the Protestant Reformation: The Birth of Fundamentalism and the Necessity of Pluralism," Journal Of Church & State 47, no. 1  (Winter 2005): 96.
[10] Ibid.
                             [11] William Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants: A Safe Way to Salvation (1638, 
repr.,London: Henry G. Bohn, 1846), 463 .

                             [12] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1873, repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1940),
Kindle edition, ch. 6.

                             [13] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1949), 79.
[14] Sandeen, 74.
                             [15] Kern Robert Trembath, Evangelical Theories of Divine Inspiration: A Review and Proposal  (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 15.  
[16] A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter & Bros, 1863), 68.
                             [17] Wayland Hoyt, “Questions Concerning Inspiration,” In The Inspired Word: A Series of
Papers and Addresses Delivered at the Bible Inspiration-Conference, Philadelphia (1887, ed. by A.T. Pierson. New York: Anson D.F. Randolph & Co, 1888), 14, 15..
                             [18] David S. Schaff, The Life of Schaff: In Part Autobiographical (New York: Charles Scribner  & Son, 1897), 354.
                             [19] Herbert S. Marsh, Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible (London: J. Smith, 1828), 279.
                             [20] George P. Marsh, Lectures on the English Language (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885), 549.
                            [21] John William Burgon, Preface to The Revision Revised  (1883 reprint, New York: Dover
Publications, 1971), xi.
                            [22] Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek New Testament and the English Version (New York: Harper & Bros, 1883), 413.
                             [23] R.A. Torrey, What the Bible Teaches (New York: Fleming H. Revell & Co., 1898),1.
                             [24] Peter S. Ruckman, The Full Cup: A Chronicle of Grace (Pensacola, FL: Bible  Baptist Bookstore, 1992), 1.

                            [25] Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Babel (Pensacola, FL: Bible Believer’s Press, 1964), ii.
                             [26] Eldon Jay Epp, Foreward to The Greek New Testament by B.F. Westcott & F.J.A Hort  (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), xii.

[27] Ruckman, Bible Babel, iii.
              [28] Ibid. The ASV referred to the American Standard Version of the Bible and the NASV referred to the New American Standard Version, the first not as popular as the second came to be in fundamentalist circles.
                              [29] Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956 Reprint, Ankeny IA: Christian Research  Press, 1984), 184. See Ruckman references to Hills in Bible Babel on pages 4, 75.

               [30] Ruckman, Bible Babel, v. The RSV refers to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the NRSV is a reference to the New Revised Standard Version.
[31] Ibid.
                             [32] Peter B. Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760-1857   (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

                             [33] Ruckman, Bible Babel, vi. Medieval Jewish scholar, Aben Ezra, is often quoted as an authority who insisted that verse 7 refers to the words while eighteenth century Bible commentator, theologian, and pastor, John Gill, alluded to Ezra’s stand on the verse referring to the preservation of the words but denied it himself. Noteworthy Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, of the eighteenth century, also held the position that the verse was not referring to preservation of words.
                             [34] William P. Grady, Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible 
(Knoxville, TN: Grady Publications, 1993), 321. Gail Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its Mystery &  History Letter By Letter (Ararat, Va.: A.V. Publications, 2003), 7.

                             [35] Ruckman, Bible Babel, 3. However, the King James Bible agreed with the Douay-Rheims Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (New Testament published in 1582 and Old Testament in 1609-10) in its inclusion of 1 John 5:7, one of the verses confirming the Trinity (also see 2 Corinthians 13:13; Matthew 28:19). This verse is not found in the modern critical text of Westcott-Hort.
                             [36] Peter Heisey, “The Value of Making a Bible Translation from the King James Holy   Bible,” (Worcestor, UK: Time for Truth Christian Literature, 2013).  http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1332198960.pdf

[37] Ruckman, Bible Babel, 2.
[38] Ruckman, Bible Babel, 19.
[39] Ibid., 23.
[40] Ibid., 32.
[41] Ibid., 43.
[42] Ibid., 36.
                             [43] Jasper James (J.J.) Ray, God Only Wrote One Bible (Eugene, OR: The Eye Opener Publishers, 1955), 106.

                              [44] Benjamin G.Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (Payson, AZ: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1930), 256.

                             [45] Joey Faust, The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement (Venus, TX: Fundamental Books, 2011), Kindle Edition, chap. 6; Robert Philip, The Life, Times & Characteristics of John Bunyan: Author of the Pilgrim’s  Progress (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1839), 489; Stephen B.Wickens, The Life of John Bunyan, Author of Pilgrim’s Progress (New York: J. Collard, 1845), 261.



[46] Faust, The Word, ch. 7.
                             [47] John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas in Four Volumes (Edinburgh; Alexander Donaldson, 1761), 481.

                             [48] George Holden,“Preliminary Dissertation.” An Attempt to Illustrate the Book of Ecclesiastes (London, F.C. & J. Rivington, 1822), ciii.

[49] Ruckman, The Full Cup, 192.
[50]  Kutilek, J. Frank Norris and His Heirs, 41.
                             [51] Ruckman, Bible Babel, 67.

No comments: