When I say I am KJV only, what does that mean? I’ve come to discover that other people have incorrect pre-conceived notions about the meaning of what that is. And I’ve discovered that Ruckman-ites and Riplinger-ites have coined a phrase for me and others with my beliefs – “Textus Receptus Only.”
Let me state it a different way. Textus Receptus only means King James Only since the King James version is the only translation that comes solely from the Textus Receptus, the New Testament in Greek.
To believe like Peter Ruckman is to be a Ruckman-ite. To believe in Gail Riplinger is to be a Riplinger-ite. Please don’t hijack the title claimed by Dean Burgon, the Dean Burgon society, and countless thousands of others who by conviction are King James Only, but fail to believe in cultish, bizarre unScriptural notions such as “Second Inspiration” and “King James above the Original Texts”.
Do I believe that you cannot be saved reading an NIV? No. There’s a sufficient amount of the truth and power of God’s word in the NIV to save someone. It greatly weakens the overall message, and can attempt to mislead one from following true biblical doctrine. But yes, I believe someone can be saved reading the NIV. I was reading an NIV at the time I was saved. And I think anyone who hears my testimony of that night will agree I was completely and thoroughly saved. I was still reading the NIV at the time that I became, by conviction, KJV only. I also had an NASB and an RSV.
King James Only means that by conviction, I will use the King James Bible to read from, study from and preach from. It means I am convinced it is the complete Bible, the inspired word of God. It represents the best English translation from true copies of the Bible as it was passed down to us from the Apostles.
It means (to most KJVO Believers) that the Modern Bibles are based upon a fraudulent attempt to reconcile two manuscripts that disagree with one another in over 10,000 places, and which have been edited in every verse by two, three and as many as twenty other hands, verses erased, words changed, notes added in margins… If most Christians ever read the writings of Tischendorf about the Textus Sinaiticus, they would put away their other bibles.
It means that we reject the work of Wescott & Hort because they had an agenda, they were unsaved men, and that they deliberately compiled the verses that best represented their particular doctrinal stands, whenever there was a choice.
It means we reject Nestle-Alland for the same reason, as their manuscripts are almost letter for letter identical to Wescott-Hort.
I think that translations such as the NASB was best described by Kent Hovind with the phrase, “A good translation of the wrong manuscripts“.
Which translation is better, the NASB or the King James? Well, since only one comes from the received text, which came to us from the churches separate from Rome from the times of the Apostles until now… it’s a moot question. Were the NASB to be translated afresh from the Textus Receptus, it would be a different story!
And then… it won’t be as precise as the KJV. Here’s an example:
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7 KJV)
Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (NASB)
The second “you” in the verse… is that singular, meaning Nicodemus? or is it plural, meaning “everyone?”
In the modern “Precise, accurate” language of the NASB, it is vague. It could be either. In the “antiquated” language of the King James, it is precise…. It means “Everyone”.
“Y” words… plural. You, yours, ye. “T” words… singular. Thee, Thou, Thine. In the KJV, It’s specific… I tell thee (Nicodemus) Ye (everyone) must be born again. It reflects the difference between σοι and υμας in the Greek.