Featured Does KJV-only teaching affect or harm Bible doctrine of Sanctification?

A poster unsoundly tried to distort and misrepresent what I mean by the term KJV-only. Therefore, I clearly presented my definition and explanation of the term KJV-only.

Amazing that poster still imagined or found a way to be negative about a proper effort to be completely clear and straightforward about my use of the term KJV-only.

That poster merely seems to imagine that he knows my motives and heart when he does not. He attacks a strawman misrepresentation that is not what I state. My motive and intention are just as I stated: to attempt to present the truth and to oppose false teaching.

I have no personal financial interest in Peter Ruckman. There are other KJV-only authors that are just as extreme in their KJV-only claims as Ruckman was.

I stopped selling my book The Unbound Scriptures several years ago. Most KJV-only authors probably make far more money on their books. If my motive had supposedly been money, I could have written a KJV-only book and perhaps sold a lot of books and made a lot of money like Gail Riplinger.

I choose to present the truth instead of seeking to make money. Perhaps someone seeks to attack my motives because they may want to avoid the truth concerning non-scriptural KJV-only teaching. My writing has helped several KJV-only advocates turn from their incorrect KJV-only opinions.

I have worked a full-time job to provide for my family.

 

Your accusation is simply not true. You try to misrepresent and distort what I accurately stated.

My statement soundly acknowledged that any who claim inspiration for the KJV would be KJV-only, but my statement did not at all say that everyone who is KJV-only claims that the KJV is inspired. You improperly read something into my statement that it did not say. Perhaps you fail to notice the "or" in my statement.
Claiming inspiration for the KJV is one exclusive only claim that some make for the KJV, but it is not the only exclusive only claim made for the KJV.

 

In his 2019 book, KJV-only author G. John Rov claimed: “’The Bible is inspired by God, but only in the originals’ is the double talk of men” (Concealed from Christians, p. 36). John Rov claimed that the makers of the KJV translated “under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost” (Concealed from Christians, p. 148). John Rov claimed that the KJV “alone is the matured, finished Bible carrying the inspiration of God” (p. 70).

In his 2018 book, KJV-only author David Daniels, who has perhaps written the most KJV-only books the last ten years, suggested that “it [referring to the KJV] carries the same inspiration as the originals” (51 Reasons Why the King James, p. 158).

Evangelist Dennis Corle accused other KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates of “theological double-talk” if they accept what he claimed is “the false idea that the King James Bible is preserved but it is not inspired” (God’s Inspired Book, p. 11). Dennis Corle asked: “If we begin with something inspired, and we preserve it, how do we lose inspiration in the process of preservation” and “if we preserve what is inspired, how can we possibly lose inspiration in the process of preservation?” (pp. 11, 20).

In his 2021 book, KJV-only author David O'Steen claimed that "faith is the main reason to believe that the KJB is the inspired word of God" (Study Notes on the KJB, p. 29).

 

That is not what my statement said. You misunderstand it or you improperly distort it.

 

Gail Riplinger asserted: “’All scripture is given by inspiration of God…’—every word, every true copy and translation (2 Tim. 3:16)” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 550). Riplinger suggested that the context in 2 Timothy 3:16 “includes copies and translations” (Ibid.). Riplinger claimed: “Bible inspiration, preservation, and translation are one” (p. 547). Riplinger claimed that “the verse—‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God’—is stating that the originals, the copies, and the vernacular translations are ‘given by inspiration of God’” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1162).

Do you agree with Gail Riplinger's claims?

 

The question of this thread concerns whether KJV-only teaching affects the Bible doctrine of sanctification.
The actual assertions quoted from KJV-only authors would conflict with this Bible doctrine since the Bible does not teach those KJV-only claims. The Scriptures do not teach that believers have to be KJV-only before they can be sanctified or before they can serve God.

The question does not at all suggest that reading the KJV affects this doctrine. I have read the KJV for over 50 years. I have nowhere suggested that any believer who wants to read the KJV should not read it. The KJV is a good over-all English Bible translation.

What I clearly disagree with is non-scriptural KJV-only teaching, which is not the same thing as the KJV. The KJV does not teach a KJV-only view.

 

On page seven in a closed thread about the Geneva Bible, a present KJV-only poster [JD731] had asserted: "In 1611 God did not give his scriptures, he translated them into English"

 

The above statement in bold type was my definition of KJV-only. The rest of that post was an explanation considering examples of what would be KJV-only and what would not be KJV-only.
The explanation clearly demonstrated that I do not consider KJV-only advocates to be monolithic in thinking.

The above statement was soundly presenting examples of views that would be KJV-only. It was not defining those possibilities as being the only forms of a KJV-only view as it was unsoundly misrepresented.

The last part of my explanation made it abundantly clear that I was not treating KJV-only advocates as
monolithic in thinking in contradiction to the false accusation that I supposedly was.