Is Peter Ruckman KJV-only according to Waite's definition?

D. A. Waite has seemed to try to suggest that the term KJV-only would apply only to Peter Ruckman and his followers.

Waite claimed: “The Ruckman position’s ‘only’ is ‘only’ in English (no Spanish, no Italian, no French” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20), but that incorrect claim would misrepresent and distort what Ruckman has actually written about his own position.

According to a just application of Waite’s definition of KJV-only, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only since Ruckman does not claim that the word of God is only in the English KJV and that all Bible translations in other languages are not the word of God.

Peter Ruckman asserted: “There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Diodati translation in Italy instead of the Authorized Version. There is nothing wrong with a missionary using the Olivetan version in France instead of the Authorized Version, and there is nothing wrong with a missionary in Germany using Luther’s version instead of the Authorized Version” (Bible Babel, p. 2). Peter Ruckman recommended “Valera’s Spanish version” and “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

 

That would agree overall with my assessment or evaluation of Waite's views since he seems to me to try to be KJV-only and not KJV-only at the same time.

At times he makes some good points in condemning some claims by Ruckman, but at other times he has to misrepresent Ruckman's view in order to try to distinguish his view from Ruckman's.

Waite did support and recommend Gail Riplinger until he found out about her three marriages. Gail Riplinger is as extreme and radical in her KJV-only reasoning as Ruckman if not more so at times.

 

D. A. Waite has clearly made some exclusive "only" claims for the KJV that would provide valid, sound, convincing evidence for considering his position to be a form of “KJV-only“ view.

D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). Waite asserted: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). He declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible is the only one that English speaking Christians ought to use” (p. 5). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). Waite asserted: “I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard. The translation of the King James Bible is a standard” (p. 23). Waite claimed: “Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use” (p. 133). In another book, Waite stated: “I am one of the Christians who contend that only the King James Bible gives us the Words of God in English” (Fundamental Deception, p. 33). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation” or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation“ (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite asserted: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). When Waite contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that that means “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would seem to be in effect claiming or implying perfection for the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1).

When Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 136), in my opinion he displays extreme or radical KJV-only reasoning.