What King James Only is Not.

In other posts you’ll find,  I’ve dealt enough with Riplinger-ism and Ruckman-ism. And I’ve dealt with what it is, albeit in a poorer manner than David Cloud did in his “What KJV Only means”. I recommend a visit to Way Of Life to read it.

King James Only, to me, does not mean that a person should burn their NIV. Or TNIV, or whatever the latest flavor.

King James only means to me, and to countless others, that we by choice and conviction believe the King James Bible to be the best translation from the Textus-Receptus. I’ve heard of one other translation from the TR, but have never seen it so I can’t comment. Since there’s only one translation from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that passed down from the apostles to us… that’s the one I use.

The Translators of the King James Bible spent years deciding what the best wording in English was for what the Bible says. To deviate from that is to get less than the best – and in reality, to open the door to apostasy and heresy. We got the RV in 1891, and 130 years later the churches, like the modern Bibles, are denying cardinal doctrines. Coincidence, I think not.

To stand for the Bible is to stand for what is right, and ultimately, to stand for God. It is to be like those Israelites who ran to Moses’ call,

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. Exodus 32:26 (KJV) 

That’s what it means.