The Authorized Version of 1611

[McCulloch]

Doesn't matter. KJV is the infallible word of God, and if it has a comma so we can understand the original context, then it has a comma.

In support of his view, he provided these links:

• How I Know The King James Bible is the Word of God I believe the King James Bible is the preserved and infallible words of God.
• Fundamentalist Ministries (KJV) We believe the King James Version to be this Holy Bible, the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language. We do not mean that the English language translators were inspired as they translated. However, because what they translated is an accurate and faithful translation of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts, the King James Version is therefore the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language. We believe the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek text to be the inspired, preserved Word of God in the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages.
• Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and...The Most Accurate We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.
• Why I Use the King James Version In conclusion, we advocate the use of the King James Version of the Scriptures, and believe that It should be treated as the Word of God italics and capitalization in the original.
• Why Do We Only Support The King James Version Of The Holy Bible? No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. [...] The King James language is NOT hard to understand.

Questions for debate: Is the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version the one version approved by God for use by English speaking Christians? Is it better than other English versions? Are there any English versions published which are better? In what ways?
_______________________________________
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)

[harvey1]

Do you think they would reject looking at the Greek or Hebrew for a better understanding or even correction to what is implied in the KJV? I say "good luck" in finding such a fundamentalist. I've never encountered such a real person.

Yes. Peter Ruckman believes the KJV to be an improvement over the Greek text. For him the KJV is Scripture in the manner that the original autographs are Scripture. It's not simply a translation for him.
Update: David Cloud addresses Ruckman's musings.

As I said to McCulloch, you can always find a kook. This Ruckman fella is so obscure that I'm surprised you heard of this guy or the people that hold a similar view. But, just to show you how far outside of the mainstream of Christianity this fellow is, read this comment by Cloud which I found by reading that link:

Dr. Ruckman believes men were saved by blood plus works in the Old Testament, that they will be saved by faith plus works in the Tribulation, and by works alone in the Millennium.

In The Unknown Bible, Ruckman claims to hold to 14 “biblical truths” which other Bible teachers have overlooked for 2,000 years. I am reminded of the truism that “if it is new it is not true, and if it is true it is not new.”

Consider what Ruckman believes:

“...every ‘recognized’ church historian and Christian ‘scholar’ is a member of a CULT. This cult is the Alexandrian Cult of North Africa, and its tentacles stretch from Origen (184-254 A.D.) to John R. Rice and the faculty members of every ‘recognized’ Christian school in the world” (Peter Ruckman, The Alexandrian Cult, Part One, 1978, p. 6).

C'mon, guys. I'm not talking about these kind of crazy people. I'm talking about Christianity. If you want to prove me wrong by finding a wacko, that door is always open. You can find a wacko who believes anything about Christianity. It's out there for the finding.

[Cathar1950]

Guys, I read some place that the unicorn is the rhinoceros and the Leviathan was the hippopotamus.
Actually I believe the Leviathan was the creature God cut in half to make the sea and sky.

[theleftone]

This Ruckman fella is so obscure that I'm surprised you heard of this guy or the people that hold a similar view.

It's not that surprising. I've spent time debating the issues before with those who adhered to them. I agree that within a larger context of Christianity, these people are obscure. However, within context of the KJV Only "debate" Ruckman is one of the major players.

Note, my response to your question was not in support of McCulloch's statement. Rather, it was intended to point out that there are people out there who do accept such ideas.

[Scrotum]

"Adam" and "Eve" are transliterations of Hebrew words.

They are? OH MAN, you need inform the Creationists.....



Seriously, for the ones with above intelligence of a banana (this excludes Creationists obviously), its very clear that if you claim that the ORIGINAL is less ´correct´ then the TRANSLATION, something is wrong.

HOW can the original be inferior to a translation of it? How can a text become ´better´? Well, its easy, if you dont LIKE the original, or what the original entails, then you prefer the ´new´ version because it cuts out (reinterprets) anything unsuitable.


And this, is what our Creationist are doing, as they are the only ones following the bible (as other Christians just use i as a ´guidance´). And even Creationists aren´t True Followers, as they do not accept that the World is flat, which is believed in the Bible. Only the Flat-Earthers are truly Fundies, whiles Creationists are Semi-Fundies excludiong the things they dont like.

I tries to join the Flat Earth Society, but it didnt exist anymore

[youngborean]

I've always disliked the pro-KJV mentality. I would say that in 1611, it was certainly the best and most inspired english translation. However, there have been textual discoveries that have been made since 1611. Especially when discussing ambiguties in OT translation. The most notable would be the discoveries at Qumran. Since the KJV doesn't consult these newly discovered OT texts, I have to opt for any of the newer translations (including NKJV) provided they are translated by comittee and explain their textual support.