This is the transcript of a sermon preached back in the 1980's about why the author believes that the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. He uses scripture and history to back up his beliefs. It's strong meat but so worth it for the serious or questioning Christian. ( )

First, some background. I have been a Christian my entire life. I was raised in the Presbyterian church, and still identify myself with that denomination. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe that God made men (and women) with an intellect and the ability to think and reason logically. I believe that science and faith are compatible - that God created the natural world and nothing we are able to discover about it will ever contradict who God is or what He has taught us about Himself. I concede that some discoveries may seem to reveal errors in scripture, but I believe that the errors will have been in our previous understanding and not in the scriptures themselves. God's word is inerrant, but our understanding is not.

Dr Peter Ruckman is an outspoken proponent of an increasingly popular school of thought sometimes referred to as KJV-Only. In short, Dr Ruckman teaches that the King James Version of the Bible as produced in 1611, also referred to as the Authorized Version (AV), is, itself, the inerrant Word of God. No other version is The Bible, the True Word of God. Only the original KJV.

This short work is his personal testimony of belief in the inerrancy of the King James Version. His points:

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it's the only book in my library that doesn't have a copyright. Basically, his argument is that since the only copyright on this work is the original crown copyright from 1611, and since Ecclesiastes 8:4 says that the word of a king is power, then this version is valid. Modern translations don't have the mark of any king so they are not valid. Then he proceeds to talk about how the English seem to be some kind of chosen people, since our timekeeping and navigation both are in terms of England (specifically, Greenwich mean time, and zero degrees longitude both being in England). Added evidence is that the English language has become so universal.

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because of the time in which it first appeared on the scene of this world. So many modern events and developments had not occurred yet. "The King James was translated at a time in history when God the Holy Spirit could work and get some men to produce a work that they believed in, because all that stuff wasn’t going on." The translation committees producing modern versions "are shot through with infidelity ... they're droids, wimps."

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because of the promise God made of preserving His word. This is where Ruckman introduces the concept that the translation is divinely inspired, although he doesn't say it in so many words. Briefly, since there were translations of Old Testament prophecies (originally in Hebrew) included in the New Testament (written in Greek), and since the New Testament is part of the whole inspired scripture, then it must be possible for a translation to be inspired. The implication seems to be that KJV, as a translation, can be inspired, but the next logical question (can't other translations also be inspired?) is not addressed. Next, he talks about the different instances in the Bible where God tells His people to keep, or remember, or hear or preach "my words" and concludes that in order to do these things then God must have a way of preserving His words.

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because of the instruments of its preservation. Ruckman likes the KJV translators because they used the "correct" Greek manuscript - the one without the apocryphal books. Now, I am not familiar with the different biblical manuscripts, but I understand that the belief that those used for the KJV are, indeed, the most accurate is not uncommon. However, Ruckman does not introduce any other argument in favor of them except for the absence of the apocrypha. The next thing he says about the KJV translators is that he likes the preface they wrote for the 1611 version.

I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because of the honesty of its preservation. In short, the KJV translators italicized words that were added in English which don't have corresponding words in the Greek. He cites an instance where the KJV translators added an English phrase at the end of a verse to complete a thought that was not in the Greek manuscript. Two hundred years later, another manuscript was discovered that had the completed thought. So now, when the KJV has something not found in the Greek manuscripts, it's because the complete manuscript hasn't been discovered yet.

One reason I believe the King James Bible is the word of God is the pride and inconsistency of its critics. This section was rambling and hard to read, but it seems that he doesn't like it when men who openly disagree with him are friendly and civil in public. He also doesn't like it when someone says they prefer one version of the Bible, and then use another on occasion. That is the kind of inconsistency he talks about. Bear in mind, these are Christian men he is talking about, but those who do not share his opinion about the inerrantcy of the KJV.

Last but not least, I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because of the preeminent place it gives the Lord Jesus Christ. He claims that all the modern version attack the deity of Jesus. I don't have access to all the versions he refers to, but those instances I checked are far less than an "attack" in my opinion. (Example, 1 Tim 3:16: KJV = "God was manifest in the flesh", ASV = "He who was manifested in the flesh".)

I apologize for the length of these comments, but I am trying to fairly present a summary of Dr Ruckman's statements and supporting arguments. I tried to maintain an open mind while reading and looked for opportunities to agree with him. I found some, but they were minor points which were not even on-topic. I've tried not to resort to his own common practice of calling names and issuing insults to those he doesn't agree with (and in doing so I've left out all mention of the frequent rambling rants and vicious attacks) but it is hard not to think that he is in some way deranged. It is alarming to think that there are so many people who take him at his word and swallow everything he says - hook, line, and sinker. (The phrase "drinking the koolaid" comes to mind.) I don't claim that all my own beliefs are correct, but I find it inconceivable that God would send us such a disagreeable and divisive messenger to deliver a True message from Him. ( )