Who was the first prominent KJV defender to influence others to declare the KJV to be inerrant or inspired in the 20th century?

The quotes provided below are to assist readers in determining not only who was the person of influence who began to teach in the 20th century that the KJV was inerrant and/or inspired, but also when. Many of the initial quotes are of KJV defenders who never used (to our knowledge) terms such as infallible, inerrant, perfect or inspired to describe the KJV, so they can be ruled out by a process of elimination.

This is considered a work in progress, and readers are invited to participate. Do you have a relevant quote that can be added here to determine the name of the first individual who can be documented to have influenced others to clearly teach that the KJV was inerrant, perfect, infallible or inspired? If so, send us a note via the comment section at the bottom of the page.

The fact that I document someone’s connection with Ruckman in some way does not mean they should be considered a full-fledged Ruckmanite, or that they always agreed with Ruckman on matters other than inspiration or inerrancy of the KJV.


In 1917 W. B. Riley wrote a book by the title The Menace of Modernism. Referring to this book, George W. Dollar on p. 114 of his 1973 book A History of Fundamentalism in America wrongly portrayed Riley as follows: "Riley's answer was that '(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant…" On the page where Dollar lifted the quote, Riley was merely introducing several thoughts (that did not reflect his views) that he would be addressing in the following pages. On page 11 Riley returns to that particular thought, and addresses it directly by posing the following question: "Is the King James version absolutely inerrant?" 

Riley then addresses the likelihood of the existence of such a view, his theory as to what was leading to it, followed by his view on the matter:

On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained. … And even now in more remote districts, where educational advantages have been few, the history of the Bible is unknown. Of its translation from language to language they have never learned… To be sure, there are multitudes who do not understand that the Scriptures were originally written either in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek; that all the original versions were lost, and that the copies of the New Testament date many years this side of Jesus, and that our Scriptures are translations… (Riley, William B. The Menace of Modernism. New York: Christian Alliance, 1917, pp. 12-13)

To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version, or even for the Revised Version, is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves; to clothe with the claim of verbal inspiration a company of men who would almost quit their graves to repudiate such equality with the prophets and apostles.  (Riley, William B. The Menace of Modernism. New York: Christian Alliance, 1917, p. 13)


The first person we are aware of in the 20th century to write a book defending the KJV who could properly be called a KJV defender was Philip Mauro (1859-1952). In 1924 he published Which Version? Authorized Or Revised? The following quote on p. 87 reveals that he believed the KJV was reliable, but not inerrant, perfect or infallible:

… we do not fail to recognize, what is admitted by all competent authorities, that the A.V. could be corrected in a number of passages where the meaning is now obscured because of changes which three centuries have brought about in the meaning of English words, or where diligent study or recent discoveries have brought to light better readings. Such instances, however, are comparatively few …


In 1925 William Aberhart (1878-1943) wrote The Latest of Modern Movements: Or What About The Revised Version Of The Bible? I do not have the benefit of reading it for myself, as it is a rare publication long out of print and not even available as an inter-library loan. David Cloud in his book For Love of the Bible quotes about four pages of excerpts. From these excerpts several observations are apparent:

  1. He made mention of practical reasons for retaining the KJV. He gave the example of how in France three versions were in common use, which was causing confusing.
  2. Another example of his concerns was a 3-point outline of what would happen “if we grant modernism the authority to revise and correct our Bibles.”
  3. In one paragraph he made mention of “an infallible guide,” but he was speaking of the Bible in general and not about the KJV, as specific Bible versions were not mentioned in that paragraph, nor in the preceding or following paragraph.
  4. He strongly believed in preservation, going as far as to say “the Lord Jesus intended to see to it that the Bible, His Word, would be preserved for us in a perfect, infallible state.” However, he did not mention the KJV in that paragraph nor in the preceding or following paragraph.
  5. When he did speak of the KJV specifically, he did not use terms such as infallible, perfect or inerrant to describe it, but rather alternative terms such as “The Authorized version is reliable.”

David Cloud believes that the KJV is the final authority (What About Ruckman? Port Huron: Way of Life Literature, 4th ed. 2004, pp. 41-42), so if Aberhart would have stated something to the effect that the KJV was inerrant, Cloud would surely not have hesitated to include such a statement in his excerpts to try to establish a link to such a belief early in the 20th century.

Aberhart went on to become a politician, and died in office as Premier of Alberta in 1943.


1930 marks the year in which 7th Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson (1872-1968) published his book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. In spite of the book’s faults, which included statements that were poorly sourced or unsubstantiated by history, and linking certain views to Ellen White (co-founder of the Adventists), Wilkinson was very clear in his denial of the inspiration or inerrancy of translations. Notice this statement from p. 256 of the 1989 reprint by Leaves-of-Autumn Books:

The original Scriptures were written by direct inspiration of God. This can hardly be said of any translation.

Not only did he not affirm in his book that the KJV was inerrant, infallible or perfect, he quoted someone approvingly who had stated

…how very seldom the Authorized Version is materially wrong, and that no doctrine has been misrepresented there. (Ibid., p. 89)

Wilkinson followed up his first book with Our Authorized Bible: Answers to Objections. On p. 27 of the 2008 Teach Services reprint he warned as follows about his views being misrepresented on this matter by reviewers of his first book:

…they unjustly represent me as making claims [sic] Authorized Version is inerrant and perfect, and the Greek Text upon which it is built as "flawless".


In this year William Hoste (1861-1938) wrote a pamphlet by the title Remove Not The Ancient Landmark: The Case Against the Revised Version. On p. 10 of the edition reprinted by Penfold Book & Bible House, Hoste states the following in a heading:

The A.V. (though, of course, not perfect) was Translated on more Reliable Principles.


Although he did not put it in writing at the time and we only have his word on it, Ruckman made the following claim of note for this year regarding himself:

In 1949 I came to the conclusion that the King James Holy Bible was the infallible, inerrant final authority in "all matters of faith and practice" for ME and every English-speaking sinner like me. I was thoroughly convinced it was a supernatural book by READING IT, and I had never read it until I had finished a book a day since I was ten years old (6,105 books). (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Apr. 2007 p. 4).


In this year Alfred Martin finished a dissertation by the title A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, which was partially reproduced years later in the book Which Bible? edited by David O. Fuller. A look the chapter by Alfred Martin in Which Bible? showed that Martin stuck to the matter of the New Testament Greek texts, and had nothing to say about the perfection or inspiration of a translation.


Within months of the release of the Old Testament of the RSV, Pastor Clayton Howard Gray of the First Baptist Church of Butler, PA preached a series of messages published in booklet form by the title The Revised Standard Version—A Friend or a Traitor to the Faith? It did not suggest in the slightest that the KJV was inspired or in any way inerrant.


In 1952 Dick Cimino wrote a booklet by the title The Truth about the “New Bible” He did not make a statement regarding any belief in the inerrancy or inspiration of the KJV, but the following statements could help in discerning his disposition:

We don’t object to Esau being called a “skillful” hunter, instead of a “cunning” one as in the King James Version. We don’t mind referring to the Israelites as being armed for battle” instead of being “harnessed.” We will admit that it was the “foreign” women who caused Solomon to sin, instead of the “outlandish.” (Anything “foreign” to God’s will is “outlandish”).
Actually, these are minor problems. Not one less sinner was saved because he didn’t know the difference between “foreign” and “outlandish.” Not one less preacher was dislocated in the preparation and presentation of his message because he may not have known that the Israelites were ARMED instead of HARNESSED! (pp. 5-6)

We accept the King James Version because of its merits, and not because of any human “Authority.”  (p. 13)

This version [the RSV] is not as accurate as the King James Version, for the simple reason that these men did not have the same reverence for the literal interpretation of the Word of God as the translators had before them. (p. 14)


In 1952, Mark Buch of the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle in Vancouver, British Columbia, debated Professor S. V. Fawcett of Union College over the question “Is the new translation of the Bible an improvement over the old?” At the time the RSV was fresh on the scene. The highlights of the debates as well as some brief articles by Buch were covered by some regional secular newspapers. In 1977, Mark Buch self-published a scrapbook containing newspaper clippings, his opening statement of the 1952 debate, and some of his thoughts by the title In Defence of the Authorized Version: One Pastor’s Battle. In two articles mentioned in Buch’s scrapbook, the journalists portrayed Buch as believing in the inspiration and inerrancy of the KJV without quoting him directly:

Claiming that the revised versions of the Bible came from questionable sources, Mr. Buch averred that the King James’ version was directly translated from a pure copy of the original text without mistake, fault or error. “To doubt the word of God is just as bad as to doubt God,” he asserted. (In Defence of the Authorized Version: One Pastor’s Battle, p. 3)

Upholding the dogma of the inherent inspiration of the King James version of the Bible, Rev. Mr. Buch said the claim of the new Bible to change only the wording into the "living language of the day" was false. (In Defence of the Authorized Version: One Pastor’s Battle, p. 4)

There is the possibility that Buch may have believed in the inerrancy or inspiration of translations, but there was no first-hand quote in his scrapbook in which Buch stated such a thing directly and where the KJV was specifically mentioned.  Buch often referred to the KJV as “a correct translation.” (In Defence of the Authorized Version: One Pastor’s Battle, pp. 42, 46, 54) His belief in perfect preservation of Greek and Hebrew copies was like Aberhart, under whom he had studied. That he seemed to have bought into Benjamin Wilkinson’s fantasy of manuscripts perfectly preserved in caves of the Alps that were passed on to Erasmus that made its way into the KJV seems evident in his article titled “Christians took scrolls into the Alps.” Here is a sample paragraph from said article:

These groups of Christians, faithful to the apostolic teachings, were driven by persecution to hide for safety in valleys and mountain recesses in Switzerland and southern France where they zealously guarded the ancient scrolls in caves and catacombs of the Alps. Best known among these groups were the Waldenses and the Albigenses, sometimes called the valdois. The manuscripts are further aglow with the romance of diving preservation in copying. Desiderious Erasmus, known as Europe’s leading Greek scholar, journeyed to Switzerland and there in the heart of the land of the Valdois in 1516 published at Bazel a Greek New Testament copied directly from these ancient manuscripts. (In Defence of the Authorized Version: One Pastor’s Battle, p. 41)

Circa mid 1950’s

Around the mid 1950’s Oliver B. Green (1915-1976) published an undated pamphlet entitled The RSV and KJV compared. Nowhere in it did he declare the KJV to be inspired, inerrant or perfect. On p. 62 he wrote the following as part of his conclusion:

I close this message with the solemn words of Revelation 22:18, 19 –and I quote them from the Reliable King James Version of the Bible.

Another undated publication from the mid-1950’s was Edgar Bundy’s Communism Invading the Churches: The New Per-Version of the Bible. It contained a foreword by Dr. John Rawlings, leader in the Baptist Bible Fellowship. It did not suggest in the slightest that the KJV was inspired or in any way inerrant.

In the mid 1950’s R. C. Foster, professor of Greek and New Testament at Cincinnati Bible Seminary published a series of articles warning about the RSV. They were reproduced in an appendix to a 1973 book by Foy Wallace, Jr. by the title A Review of the New Versions. Foster made it clear in his publication that he did not believe the KJV to be inerrant. R.C. Foster was not typical of those who rose up against the RSV, because he was defensive of the American Standard Version in addition to the KJV.


In 1955 J. J. Ray wrote the first edition of his book God Wrote only One Bible. On p. 30 of the first edition he wrote as follows:

The crying need of today is still for an honest, trustworthy revision of the King James Bible. However, it remains the very best English translation now extant.

This statement was removed in the 1980 edition of his book.


This marks the year in which Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) published the first edition of his popular book The King James Version Defended. The concluding paragraph of the 1st edition reads thus:

Consistently Christian principles, therefore, do lead to the adoption of the King James Version as the standard English Bible. This does not mean, however, that minor improvements may not be made in this venerable translation. Certain obsolete expressions may no doubt be modernized, certain infelicitous renderings bettered. But these changes must be kept down to a minimum and introduced with great care in order that the matchless beauty of this great piece of classic English prose may in no wise be impaired. Thus slightly revised, the King James Version will doubtless continue for another three hundred and fifty years (if the Lord tarry so long) to preserve for faithful readers the true New Testament text undamaged by the ravages of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism. (pp. 142-143)


In this year Evangelist Dan Gilbert issued a small 31-page booklet entitled Debate: The “New Bible” Versus “Old-Fashioned Bible.” The objective of his booklet was solely to expose the RSV, so he did not even mention the KJV. Therefore, it did not teach that the KJV was inspired or inerrant.


In May, 1959, B. F. Dearmore (1897-1969) published a brief one-page article by the title “Greek vs. English” in his newsletter The Message. He starts off the article with the following thought-provoking question:

Do we actually have a Bible? I believe we do. If so, what is the Bible? Is it the so-called New Bible? …[several translations mentioned]
Some will say it is not either but it is the original. If that answer is true, we have no Bible for the original is not in existence.

One of his statements imply that some believe that only the original is "the Bible." I cannot think of a Christian who would not be willing to refer to the Bible translation he trusts as "the Bible," or at least "a translation of the Bible." The following paragraph includes a statement that is worthy of our attention:

Others might say certain parts of each translation (or version) are correct and certain parts are incorrect. If this is true we still have no Bible. Will we let the Catholic, Campbellite or the Baptist say which parts to accept?
As for me, I will take the King James translation as the very Word of God for the English people. I believe it is without error. It is 100 percent correct.

Notice that he was expressing the attitude with which he personally approached the KJV, and he implied it was not something he imposed on others, as he began his statement with "as for me…" However, this comes across as a legitimate early case of expressing a personal conviction that the KJV was inerrant under his hypothetical situation of having to either choose a Bible with parts that cannot be accepted or a Bible that is 100 percent correct. Did he remain consistent with this defense of the KJV? More articles written by him would need to be examined to make such a determination. Unfortunately, his newsletter apparently did not have much circulation, as remaining copies are hard to find. No other copies were located for purposes of our research. As with Mark Buch, we are not aware of any KJV defender who has written mentioning Dearmore as having influenced him or listing Dearmore in the bibliographies of their writings before David Cloud mentioned him in his 1995 book For Love of the Bible. No books could be located written by B.F. Dearmore, with the exception of The Church, a 12-page pamphlet.


In 1961 Ian Paisley (1926-2014) wrote The New English Bible: Version or Perversion?, a 32-page booklet. It didn't have a date of publication in the title page, but the introduction makes it obvious that it was written in 1961. Paisley did not state anywhere that the KJV was inspired or inerrant. In the conclusion the following sentence can be found:

The A.V. is reliable because it tells us as accurately as possible what the Bible says and not what some galaxy of scholars, who, however learned, are after all, but mortals like ourselves, thinks it ought to say.


In September of this year the Christian author M. R. DeHaan (1891–1965) issued his 32-page booklet Bible Versions and Perversions. To answer the question as to whether he taught that the KJV was inspired or inerrant, we offer the following quote from page 9 and 26:

We believe that these translations into the various languages were directed by God, and while we do not claim that they were inerrant, as were the originals, we do believe that God saw to it that no major errors were introduced, but the meaning of the text was preserved. … The Authorized Version is reliable because it tells us as accurately as possible what the Bible says…


In this year Peter Ruckman published the 1st edition of his book The Bible Babel. This was during a time in which Ruckman was still forming his beliefs regarding the KJV. At first glance, this book may not seem to go much farther than KJV defenders before him. There are statements that were typical of KJV defenders before him, such as: “…the AV is an honest translation.” But if you examine his book carefully, you will notice some new twists. On p. 24 he wrote (pay special attention to what he said in the parenthesis, although it could be understood in more than one way):

Unlike the translators of the AV (who assumed that they were handling inerrant truth from God Himself), the new translators assume that translating should CORRECT errors that God made in regards to His attitude about His Son!

On p. 64 Ruckman added:

Alongside the RSV, and ASV the AV, 1611 is flawless, when it comes to "uniform translating."

On p. 73 he has an illustration with a Bible labeled as KJV at the top of a tree, with the statement “The one, true, infallible God-breathed Bible” beneath the tree. It is not likely a reference to the originals, as the originals were already mentioned part-way up the tree, and the KJV label is the heading at the top of the illustration. On p. 73 there is a reference to "1059 God-breathed pages," which in the context clearly implies that it is a reference to the KJV. Ruckman doesn't know how many pages the originals consisted of, so it could only be a reference to a KJV Bible he had on hand. On p. 72 Ruckman implies that the KJV is "the Holy Spirit's writing," as it was the only Bible he refers to in the preceding sentence. The KJV defenders Ruckman cites in the footnotes of his book did not teach that the KJV was inspired or inerrant, so it cannot be said that Ruckman was merely passing down what he had been taught.

It should also be mentioned that in the 1960's Ruckman began to publish his Bible Believer's Commentary Series. It's primary purpose was to defend the infallibility of every word of the KJV, something which had never been done before in a Bible commentary series.


In this year Edward Hills—whose 1956 work has already been quoted—published Believing Bible Study. A first edition copy was not located for this study. My source is a second edition published in 1977. On p. 83 we read:

Admittedly the King James Version is not ideally perfect. No translation ever can be. But it is the product of such God-guided scholarship that it is practically perfect. Its errors are very few and very minor. So few and so minor that it is difficult to point out any readings in the King James Version that are certainly erroneous. Perhaps not too many more than the following may safely be identified as such…


In 1970 David O. Fuller issued a popular book which he edited by the title Which Bible? which is still in print. It included chapters by ten other contributing authors, some of whom have already been quoted in this document (Wilkinson, Martin, and Hills). Page 33 answers the question as to whether the book taught that the KJV was inspired or inerrant:

No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect…

In 1973 Fuller issued another book he edited, under the title True or False? as a sequel to his previous book. The second printing of 1975 in our possession has an advertising blurb for Which Bible? on the back cover from a book review. It starts off as follows:

Which Bible? is not a repudiation of scholarship. It is not an argument for the inerrancy of a translation.


In this year Peter Ruckman launched an influential book still in print by the title The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Ruckman presented the KJV as inerrant with such statements as the following on p. 154:

The A.V. is the crystal-clear, exact, precise reproduction of the originals and it is so excruciatingly exact and dynamic and "living," that Modern Scholarship just simply can’t stand it.

In order to justify teaching that the KJV was an exact reproduction of the originals, in this book Ruckman taught on pp. 125-126 that the Holy Spirit inserted things without the knowledge of the translators:

But the careful student of the scripture, through long familiarity with the A.V. text, has been surprised more than once by the marvelous undesigned "coincidences" which God the Holy Spirit has inserted in the Bible, without the awareness of the translating committee.

Ruckman also degraded the importance of Greek manuscripts with such statements as this one on p. 137:

Where the Greek says one thing and the A.V. says another, throw out the Greek.


In this year Bruce Cummons issued his book The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God. In repeated places in the book he taught that the KJV was infallible or inspired. On p. 39 he wrote:

I have never had any doubt about this Bible, the KJV, being God’s infallible Word.

On p.46 he wrote:

I believe we have an infallible Bible. I believe that Bible to be the Authorized Version, or the King James Version.

Was Dr. Cummons at least partially influenced by Ruckman? On this there is no need to speculate, as on p. 46 he referred to Ruckman as a “thorough student of manuscript evidence.” Of the books in his bibliography that dealt with the KJV controversy, the only one listed that taught in certain words that the KJV was inerrant was Ruckman’s book The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence.


1973 was also the year in which Herbert Evans had a written dispute with Dr. John R. Rice. It was published in booklet form under the title Dear Dr. John Where is my Bible? A written Dispute with John R. Rice. On p. 13 Evans wrote:

This in no way implys [sic] that the copyists were inspired nor the translators. This in no way implys [sic] there were no copyist errors or bad translations. It does imply accuracy to the extent that we now have an infallible Bible in our language. By infallible I mean 1. Free from error 2. Absolutely reliable; sure; that cannot be mistaken.

In various places he openly defends Peter Ruckman and even challenges Dr. Rice to have a debate with Ruckman.


Dick Cimino was quoted in 1952 writing that the KJV was simply more accurate than the RSV. Notice the change in tune in the foreword to his 1974 book The Book:

This means by implication that the God honored, Time tested, Life changing, Fruit bearing King James Bible is “only reliable.”

The following statement from p. 122 of the 1975 expanded edition of his book explains the difference in attitude:

I submit the following, thanks to (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Dr. P.S. Ruckman), 'NO ONE HAS EVER PROVED YET THAT THE KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION is NOT the perfect, exact translation of the Original Manuscripts…

However, Cimino stopped short of declaring the KJV to be inspired outright, as evidenced on p. 146:

We do not say the King James 1611 Authorized Version is inspired – it is GOD-GUIDED!


In 1975 Donald Clarke published Bible Version Manual. On p. 133 of his last chapter he placed the following words in capital letters, indicating that he believed the KJV was inspired: “Accept and preach the King James Bible as the inspired and preserved Word of God!!!!!!” Although no bibliography was included in the book, a couple of the footnotes demonstrate some reliance on Ruckman.


Sabotage? is a comic-style booklet written by Jack Chick and published by Chick Publications with a 1979 copyright. It contains some terminology used by Ruckman, such as repeated references to "the Alexandrian cult." On p. 22 of an edition purchased in 2009 he recommends Ruckman's book Manuscript Evidence, and lists the address, phone number and website of Ruckman's bookstore. His pocket-size pamphlet The Attack with a 1985 copyright reveals that Jack Chick believes in an infallible KJV, although he also believes in an infallible and inspired Textus Receptus, which is not Ruckman's exact view.


In the December issue of Ruckman’s Bible Believers' Bulletin, a front page article appeared by the title "My Stand on the Inerrancy of the King James Version." It was by David O. Fuller, whom a few years earlier had edited a book we quoted earlier that affirmed in no uncertain terms that “No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect…” What prompted the change? The fact that the article appeared in Ruckman’s own paper is significant. Also, Fuller himself wrote a positive review of Ruckman's Job commentary (Bible Believers' Bulletin, Oct 1978). Ruckman’s 1990 book The Last Grenade reveals that Fuller had encouraged Ruckman in personal letters (see pp. 79, 146, 166). Here is a brief excerpt of a letter from Fuller to Ruckman: "I have been encouraged and inspired by a number of your books, especially the one on Manuscript Evidence. (The Last Grenade, p. 166)


In 1981 Homer Massey printed the booklet Where is the Word of God Today? On p. 12 he affirms:

Our position is that there are no "errors" or "mistakes" in the King James English Version of the Bible.

On that very same page he recommends a book by Peter Ruckman:

Dr. Ruckman also recognizes that there are problem texts and has written a lengthy book dealing with them.


In the Aug-Sep. issue of The Flaming Torch of which he was co-editor at the time, Evangelist Don Edwards printed an article by the title “Will the Real Fundamentalist Please Stand Up?” On p. 17 he affirms:

I believe the King James Bible is the preserved, inerrant, infallible Word of God, without qualification.

Is it a coincidence that the very next paragraph is all about Ruckman? Read on:

Now, you need not come around or go off someplace and say, "Brother Edwards is a Ruckmanite." I believed what I believe about the Word of God before Ruckman ever got saved. I was preaching out of this very book right here before Ruckman ever got saved. I count him as a friend. I know him and he speaks to me when I see him, which means very little. But nevertheless, I know Peter Ruckman. I have his books. I know what he believes and I know what he doesn’t believe about many things, but what I believe about the Word of God has nothing at all to do with Peter Ruckman. I believed it before I ever heard of Peter Ruckman. I believe that the Word of God is this book right here – this King James Bible – the inspired Word of God.

My question is —if he believed that the KJV was inspired and inerrant before hearing of Ruckman— (which he may have) where are the articles he wrote proving this among the many years of his previous writings in The Flaming Torch?


In this year Norman Ward issued a booklet by the title Famine in the Land. The following statement is to be found in the booklet:

The A.V. 1611 was the ultimate expression and the final purification of the Majority tradition. … No book ever published has had a greater influence on civilization than has the A.V. 1611. It is the pure, perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God. (Famine in the Land, p. 40).

Towards the beginning of the booklet the author is already promoting Ruckman by referring to his Problem Texts book as “powerful” and “eye-opening.” (p. 4)


The Authorized King James Bible Defended was written by Chester Murray in 1983. Within the first eight pages he is quoting Ruckman approvingly. On p. 95 he goes as far as to refer to the KJV as the “dictated” Word of God:

When once a person accepts the KJ Bible as his Inerrant Inspired (or Dictated) Word of God and the Holy Spirit makes It to come alive to him so as to bring faith unto Salvation and he feasts on the Word, then, through higher education or the use of perversions, or any other reason he questions the KJ Bible he is lost – he has nothing solid to follow;


In 1983 Chick Publications issued Let’s Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton. The introduction states the following:

We believe that the Bible (KJV) is the Word of God, and we also believe that God has preserved it perfect for us today. It was not just perfect in the original autographs.

The bibliography listed four authors, with Ruckman’s books being the only ones listed that teach the KJV is infallible.


Famine in the Land was written by Norman Ward with a preface by Bob Steward. A typical statement on the inerrancy of the KJV is found on p. 40:

…the A.V. 1611. It is the pure, perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God.

On p. 46 the author recommended one of Ruckman's books, and there were more books by Ruckman in the bibliography than by any other author. There was also a list of "fine organizations" on the last page, with Ruckman's bookstore at the top of the list.


In this year Sam Gipp, a graduate of Ruckman’s Bible institute, published his book An Understandable History of the Bible with a foreword by David O. Fuller. On p. 170 Gipp declared:

Every argument for inerrant, infallible inspiration applies also for inerrant, infallible preservation. It is the same God! If a believer in perfect inspiration says that God overpowered the writers’ ability to make a mistake, the believer in perfect preservation can also state that God overpowered the translators’ ability to make a mistake.

Gipp quoted and defended Ruckman throughout the book. The last concluding sentence in his book affirms:

Thank you, Lord, for your perfect Bible, the Authorized King James Bible.


1988 was the year that Bob Steward published Removing the Landmarks. He clearly implied KJV inerrancy with the following statement on p. 15:

Those learned men that our Lord providentially put together to give us our Authorized King James Bible were better qualified than was Scofield to deal with the text. Do not be fooled by anything in print that takes issue with the text of our Bible. Change not a paragraph, not a sentence, not a word.

Had Steward been influenced by Ruckman? On page 17 he quoted from one of his books, and defended him as follows:

Please do not give me emotional arguments against D. Ruckman. Some are greatly offended at him, saying that he is very abrasive with those who do not agree with him. I care not one whit about such matters. We are dealing with the Word of God and this man likely has as much or more understanding on this subject as most men in our day.


In 1989 Samuel Gipp printed The Answer Book: A Helpbook for Christians. My 4th printing edition states as follows on p. 62:

God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

Over and over again in his book Gipp emphasizes that the KJV is perfect. For example, on p. 95 he answers the question

If the King James really is perfect, how can so many preachers and scholars be wrong about it?

with the following answer:

The majority is ALWAYS wrong.

Gipp demonstrates eagerness to promote Ruckman’s position by dedicating no less than three pages to his defense.


In 1989 Robert Sargent published the first edition of his massive work English Bible: Manuscript Evidence. The concluding lecture makes it clear that he believes in the inerrancy of the KJV. For example, on p. 324 of the 2001 edition Sargent objects to the statement:

The translators of the Authorized, King James Version did not think their work was perfect.

as follows:

No doubt, they were unaware of what God was doing through them. Keep in mind that the preface is not Scripture.

On p. 11 in his list of “Helpful Texts” he includes two books by Peter Ruckman, including The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. It should be noted that in the introduction to his “Helpful Texts” list he states that he does not endorse all books that are on the list (perhaps because some on the list gave an overview of manuscripts and English Bible history, but did not portray the KJV in a positive light).


In 1989 Michael F. Breckinridge published a book by the title The Case for the King James Bible. It was obvious that he had the KJV in mind when he made the following statement on p. iv of the preface:

IF GOD mandated the translation work, if He commissioned and ordained it, and if his Holy Spirit hovered over the work, THEN WHY COULDN’T THE RESULT BE AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL?

In reference to Acts 12:4, he states the following on p. 4:

This is a beautiful example of more information and more insight coming from the English than from the Greek.

After referring to “advanced revelations from the AV 1611 text,” he affirms the following on p. 36:

The words in a King James Bible have been supernaturally put together with a precision at least equal to that of the cells and tissues in a human body. One might also think of a King James Bible as the most accurate and expensive (blood of the martyrs!) timepiece in the entire world.

Did Ruckman influence the author? The question is easily answered, as the Bibliography lists no less than 10 works by Peter Ruckman. Also the Acknowledgments page had the following to say:

This booklet is largely based on the works of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who more than anyone else has shown me the glories of the King James Bible, and whose expositions of scripture have been a blessing to my soul. Many, many thanks to him, and to the Pensacola Bible Institute, which he heads.


In 1992 James Son printed a book by the title The New Athenians. Notice this statement in the book in which he takes Ruckman’s double inspiration concept a step further on p. 25:

I believe that the Authorized Version is the inspired, infallible, inerrant, immutable, pure word of God to English speaking people. (I not only believe in DOUBLE inspiration [which the NEW Athenians reject], but, also, I believe in TRIPLE INSPIRATION. I believe that God not only inspired the writers in the original languages, but also the New Testament writers when they TRANSLATED the Hebrew passages into the Greek, and the translators of the Authorized Version as they made their selection of English words.)

If Ruckman did not believe that the KJV translators were inspired when they made their selection of words, he would be expected to speak out against this book (after all, Ruckman has no qualms about speaking his mind). The author James Son even uses the term “inspired” in reference to the KJV translators selecting the words, which term Ruckman condemns when his opponents use it in describing what Ruckman believes (because he prefers “given by inspiration.”) However, not only did Ruckman not speak out against this book, he endorsed it multiple times in his Bible Believers’ Bulletin. (Sep. 1992, p. 3; March 2008, p. 16) The Bible Baptist Bookstore catalog for 2022 still lists this book by Son for sale. There is no need to speculate as to whether Son was influence by Ruckman, as he praised Ruckman numerous times throughout the book, including in the acknowledgement page.


In 1993 William (Bill) Grady published Final Authority. His view is easily discernable in the following quote from p. 21:

After denouncing your Authorized Version as uninspired, the double-talking Nicolaitane will then quote from it to prove that some non-existent papers were inspired before they disappeared!

Who had influenced Grady? 14 years later in his video sermon Seven Signs of Pseudo King James Onlyism at gradypublications.com he reveals who it was all along:

In 1988 Jack Patterson gave me a book called Manuscript Evidence by Dr. Peter Ruckman. I began reading it because no one else could give me any answers. And the longer I read, the more convicted I got and I got shook up. And then out of nowhere it dawned on me that that King James Bible was the Word of God based on all the voluminous material, documented material on that particular book. … In 1992 the Lord led me to write my book Final Authority. Dr. Ruckman advised me, "Whatever you do son, don't put my name in the book and don't quote me in the book." … And I listened to him.

Could it be that some other authors influenced by Ruckman are also intentionally not bringing him up, so this fact is hidden from their readers? In 1993, Ruckman tried to portray his opponents as "psychotic" for linking the views of some recent KJV-only authors with him, and for three specific authors (including Grady) he claimed they were not connected even indirectly to him:

… find themselves up against a formidable array of real Bible believers that are not even connected —directly or indirectly— with that infamous heretic, Ruckman. Mickey Carter, of Haines City, Florida, has a monograph on the King James Bible that doesn't quote Ruckman one time, nor even mention his name. Riplinger has a definitive work on the King James Bible called The New Age Bible Versions that doesn't cite Ruckman one time. … The latest along this line is a book by William P. Grady, a faculty member at Hyles-Anderson College. His work is called Final Authority and it was published this year. … My name does not appear anywhere in the work from cover to cover. … That will the unsavoury job of the apostates at the Christian colleges and universities. They will have to give the credit to Ruckman because they are psychotic. They have two diseases: " Ruckmanitis" and "AIDS" (Alexandrian Idiots Degrading Scripture). (Bible Believers' Bulletin. Sep. 1993, p. 16)

At least in the case of Grady's book, was it not dishonest for Ruckman to insinuate there was not even an indirect link to his book —as he was not mentioned anywhere from cover to cover— when that was the agreement between them all along, according to Grady's admission? Geneha Kim, author of Ruckmanism Ruckus, complains about the predicament as he explains why Ruckman doesn't want others to associate his name with their literature: "Authors cannot include a single one of Dr. Ruckman's books in their footnotes, because Christians and Fundamentalists will reject the authors' work." (Ruckmanism Ruckus, p. 314)


In 1993 Gail Riplinger issued her book New Age Versions. On p. 510 of the 4th printing she wrote: “It appears the case for the inspiration of the KJV is mounting.” On p. 507 she demonstrates that she does not think as highly of Greek manuscripts as compared to translations: “It is obvious that the word of God in its perfect state does not reside in any one of the ancient Greek manuscripts extant today.” Now compare on p. 509 how she objects to the statement “No translation can be a perfect reproduction of the original” by accusing the author of that statement of being “like doubting Thomas.” On the last page of her book (4th printing) she recommends a number of bookstores, including the one run by Peter Ruckman’s church, which exists for the purpose of distributing his books.

In her other book In Awe of Thy Word she reveals her Ruckman-like beliefs clearly in the following quote on p. 956:

A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, "I don't believe the KJV corrects 'the original Greek’ or 'I don't believe the KJV corrects the 'Majority Text' or the 'Textus Receptus.' … There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it.

For years she has been distributing select Ruckman books along with her own which can be verified at her website avpublications.com.


In 1993 Pastor Mickey Carter issued his book Things that are Different are not the Same. On p. 74 we read:

The King James Version is the plenary, verbal inspired Word of God. Word for word, the very minute details (jots and tittles) were God-breathed into man, who wrote it.

Unless the second sentence could somehow be understood as not referring to the KJV just mentioned in the previous sentence, this is one of the most extreme statements I have come across in which the composing of the KJV was described in terms identical to typical descriptions of the process of inspiration of the original manuscripts. In another part of the book, the author taught that God controlled the men as they held the pen during the process of preservation: 

God did something greater than preserve the originals. God could have preserved the originals, but He did not choose to. He preserved accurate copies down through the years for us. That is greater than putting the originals in a stone vault somewhere. God used fallen, depraved, fallible man to preserve His Word. He used man in the same way as a man would pick up a pen and hold it in his hand. God is in control. While a man holds the pen, that man controls it. Man is not worth much, but God can control man when he is in God’s hand.
In one sense we do have the divine originals between the covers of our King James Version Bible. God did something to inspire it; then He did something to preserve it. (pp. 64-65)

Carter does not state outright that the KJV corrects the Greek in his book, but the concept is there in certain words on a whole page in which he attempts to persuade the reader not to look up meanings in the original languages:

One cannot take an English word and back trail accurately to the original. It can be done somewhat accurately, but not to the place where it gives the authority to change what the translators who came forward with it said. They were looking at the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus when they translated it. (p. 106)

Was Carter influenced by Dr. Ruckman? Very likely, as Ruckman preached for Carter (The Full Cup, 1992, p. 284) and referred to him as one of “my friends.” (The Book of Romans, 2003, p. 269)


In 1993 Timothy Morton published Which Translation Should You Trust? In the conclusion on p. 68 Morton wrote the following:

From the material above (and more like it) and the witness of the Holy Spirit, we are firmly convinced that any edition of the Authorized King James Version of 1611 (apart from typographical errors, of course) is God’s pure, inerrant, infallible word;

The bibliography listed several works by Peter Ruckman.


In 1995 Paul Heaton published What About Those Italicized Words? The second edition (2002) gives the following warning in the conclusion on p. 29:

If ANY word, or words, in the Authorized King James 1611 Bible are NOT the inerrant, preserved, inspired (oops) words, of God, then pray tell where is that PERFECT Bible of which you speak?

That the author is given to extreme views is evident by this statement:

It matters not how you view it, the italicized words are the words inspired by the Holy Ghost through the translators, for the purpose of understanding and correctness of the Word of God. (p. 21)

The booklet shows some dependence on Ruckman, such a recommendation of further study of his Christian Handbook of Manuscript Evidence on p. 11.


1995 marks the year in which Thomas Holland wrote A Critique of James R. White’s Book “The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?” He felt that Peter Ruckman had been wrongly represented as an extremist in the book he reviewed, and he starts off with a personal letter to Ruckman. Towards the end of the letter, he implies his one view as he laments as follows on p. 8:

Mr. White not only misrepresented you, but also all who hold to the Authorized Version as God’s perfect and preserved word.


In 1995 Michael O'Neal wrote Do We Have the Word of God?, which he dedicated to Peter Ruckman. On the dedication page he also has the following interesting statement:  "Scriptures in this book are from the Authorized Version 1611 -KJV- and are used by permission of the Author – Eph. 6:17." Alluding to this statement, he writes on p. 20: "You see, I know the AUTHOR of the AUTHORized version!!" In the last paragraph of the same page he continues:  "Put in the front of your book, 'This book is dedicated to the Author of the King James Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ.' To some people, that's heresy."


1996 marks the year in which Roy Branson wrote KJV 1611: Perfect! A Conviction, Not a Preference. Many extreme statements can easily be found therein, such as:

Like a delinquent carving on the Mona Lisa, those who use Greek and Hebrew aids are theological delinquents… (p. 27) No Greek or Hebrew text will be as pure as the English words in your KJV. (p. 97)

Who could have influenced him to write such extreme things? There is no need to speculate, as the author dedicates several pages to defending Ruckman. At one point he laments that Ruckman is so harsh and wonders if such language is necessary, but he still defends Ruckman and even acts like he doesn’t understand why:

This, by the way, is meant as no criticism of Dr. Ruckman. For whatever reasons, however, he is much hated and continually reviled by militant Rummagers. (He freely reviles them, too). (pp. 42-43)


In 1997 James Melton printed a booklet by the title Fighting Back! A Handy Reference Guide for King James Bible Believers. On p. 3 is a list of questions for those who disagree with him on the KJV issue, the author asks:

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Reliance on Ruckman is evidenced by the fact that he included more books by Ruckman than any other author in his “Recommended Reading” list at the end of the booklet. The biographical sketch of Peter Ruckman in the "Great Soldiers of the Cross" leaflet series, published by his church and likely written by him, praises Ruckman as "one of the most effective preachers of the twentieth century.


In 1998 Ed DeVries issued the first edition of his book The Word of God Divinely Inspired and Inerrantly Preserved. In his 2000 edition he ends the book with the following two sentences on p. 92: “Thank God! He has given us an inerrant copy of His Word – The KING JAMES BIBLE!”

In the very first page of the introduction he lists Ruckman as being one of the “greater minds.” In his “bibliography and suggested reading” he lists two books by Peter Ruckman. A number of years back Ed DeVries had a News-Of-Interest newsletter distributed by e-mail. I was forwarded one of his e-mail newsletters on January 10, 1999 that I kept all these years which bore the subject line “OH SHUT UP ABOUT DR. RUCKMAN.”


In 1999 Dr. Solomon Aordkian wrote Honoring the King James Bible. The very first sentence in the book affirms:

The Authorized Version, (AV), King James Bible (KJB) is without error.

The bibliography mentioned literature by Ruckman, in addition to books by a graduate of his Bible institute (Sam Gipp) as well as a former professor of his institute (Laurence Vance). The bibliography also mentions two audiotapes with no author listed that have the Ruckmanite buzzword “Alexandrian Cult” in the title.


In 2000 John Adair printed Sitting in Judgment of the Word of God. In the conclusion of the last appendix we find the following extreme view:

The King James Bible corrects: History; Science; Philosophy; Governments; Religions; Society; Greek and Hebrew texts; and Original autographs.

A cursory examination of the book reveals some reliance on Ruckman, such as on p. 46:

According to Dr. Peter Ruckman, the spots of the leopard are the key to the mark of the beast: a kiss…


The Flaming Torch website archives of previous articles lists an article from the year 2000 by Walter Beebe by the title “Why did I Become a KJV Fan? (Again!)” He contends for the inspiration of the KJV in the following sentence:

The more I studied, the more I compared, the more I checked out the translators, the more I became convinced that the KJV was the inspired and preserved Word of God that God had allowed the English-speaking world to have for hundreds of years!

The very paragraph previous to the above quote, he had the following words of praise for Peter Ruckman:

If I never thank Dr. Peter Ruckman for anything else, I must thank him for the fact that he made me think! He challenged me to ask myself the searching question, "Did I have the real, inspired, Word of God anywhere?"


The Geocentric Bible was written by Gordon Bane, and contains extreme views regarding the inspiration of the KJV. It is unclear when the first edition of The Geocentric Bible was first circulated. The 2004 edition referred to as The Geocentric Bible 3, was combined with A Geocentric Primer (second edition) by Gerardus Bouw. While not denying that the originals were inspired by the Holy Spirit, on p. 215 Bane affirms that "The Holy Spirit inspired only the KJV." On p. 218, in what appears to be a reference to the KJV according to the context, we find "The second inspiration became the authority and was superior to the first." Who had influenced Bane's views? There is no need to speculate, as on pp. 247-248 after referring to two of Ruckman's books approvingly, he adds, "I've read about 20 of his books."


In 2006 Jack Mundey published Corruptions in the New King James Bible. Between pages 58-59 he clearly teaches that if only the originals are inspired, we are all condemned to hell:

If you don't have a Bible that's inspired, then my friend your [sic] LOST and still on the road to HELL. … So let's face the facts, if only the "original" writings and letters were "inspired"–then we're all on the road to hell, and there is NO HOPE, NO GOD and NO SALVATION!

The book contains many questionable statements, such as affirming that the KJV translators “preached on the street” (p. 8) without documenting the source of his information. Although there is no bibliography in the book, there is no doubt that Ruckman influenced him somewhat, as on p. 22 he recommends a commentary by Ruckman as well as one by a graduate of Ruckman's Pensacola Bible Institute. We are not saying that what we just pointed out in Mundey’s book reflect Ruckman’s views, but rather we are making the observation that extreme views are commonplace among those who allow themselves to be influenced by Ruckman.

Undated works demonstrating Ruckman’s influence

– Pastor Paul Fedena issued We Have it in Writing in an undated booklet published by Bible For Today. On p. 3 of the second section we find the following quote:

"Any verse in the King James Version we cannot understand is due to our own ignorance. There may be problems caused by our ignorance, but there are no errors."

Evidence of influence by Ruckman is found throughout the book. Page 1 starts with an outline that he admits in a footnote is taken from Ruckman’s book The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence.

– Considering that Alan O’Reilly’s book “O Biblios” The Book is over 350 pages in length, it is surprising that it does not mention a publication date. The preface contains abundant proof of the author’s extreme views without even having to delve into the book:

The view that I express is that of a Bible believer, who takes the AV Bible, in any edition as inerrant with respect to its words, punctuation, order of Books and chapter and verse divisions. It is Holy Scripture given by inspiration of God, 2 Timothy 3:16, and is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, and is superior to any set of "originals," any set of manuscripts in either Hebrew or Greek, any English Bible published before or since 1611, and any Hebrew or Greek Testament, including the "Textus Receptus." … I would add inerrancy with respect to paragraph divisions.

There is no mistaking his influence on the part of Ruckman:

“I am particularly indebted to Dr. Ruckman’s ministry via his books and tapes for my deliverance from this cult and for belief in the AV1611 as the perfect Bible.”

The information he gives in his testimony indicates that he was not referring to a sect when he credited Ruckman with delivery from a cult, but rather what Ruckman calls “the Alexandrian Cult.”

– The King James Only Controversy – Answered was written by Pastor Hugo Schonhaar. On p. 33 he made clear his belief in an infallible KJV:

“There is only one King James Bible. The KJB is the Word of God and as such bears the stamp of infallibility.”

Schonhaar’s books reveals heavy reliance on Ruckman, even reproducing his “Creed of the Alexandrian Cult” and expounding on it. On p. 46 he clearly stated his confidence in Ruckman regarding the King James issue:

“This writer does not agree with some of Dr. Ruckman’s theology centering on the church and on the issue of divorce and remarriage but concerning the issues surrounding the King James Bible, Dr. Ruckman is usually found to be accurate and trustworthy in his assertions.”

– Around the early 1980's Bruce Musselman, Jr. issued an undated booklet entitled Correcting the King James Bible. In point IX of his outline on p. 8 he states "Correctors of the King James Bible reject the verbal inspiration of Scripture." This is followed by the statement "If the authorized Bible is Scripture, it is inspired of God." His bibliography reveals reliance on Ruckman by three sources published by Ruckman's publication ministry. This included Ruckman's book Problem Texts as well as his monthly periodical "Bible Believers' Bulletin, with no specific issue mentioned.

– Greg Estep issued some pamphlets that taught the KJV was infallible that appear to have been printed around the 1980's. In Translation or Tribulation? in the conclusion on p. 31 Estep lamented that there were those who were "trying to destroy the infallibility of the King James Bible." This particular pamphlet did not mention Ruckman specifically (it did not contain a bibliography), but the characteristic Ruckman teaching that people will be saved by faith and works in the tribulation was taught on p. 13. In another pamphlet The Fable vs. The Faith, Estep implied repeatedly that the KJV was infallible. In the bibliography he listed no less than six works by Peter Ruckman.

Others attributing the belief in an inerrant KJV to Ruckman

In a January, 1980 article on p. 2 of The Dean Burgon News Thomas Strouse warned as follows:

It is one thing to say that the Traditional Texts, the Massoretic and Received Texts, are closest to the originals, and it is a completely different thing to say that a translation is inerrant. Evidently, Peter Ruckman holds this view, affirming that the KJV is inerrant and infallible. Certainly this is going too far theologically; inspiration is the unique process that occurred in the writing of the originals.

D. A. Waite in one of his many books attributed a belief in an inerrant KJV to Ruckman:

First, I have never said I believe in "an inerrant KJV." That is pure Ruckmanism. (A Critical Answer to Michael Sproul's God's Word Preserved, 2008, p. 65)

Michael O'Neal, a promoter of Peter Ruckman who has already been mentioned, summarized Ruckman's influence on the dedication page of his book Do We Have the Word of God? in such a way that it backs up what we have already documented:

…and with deepest affection to His servant, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, who, in my estimation, has influenced more people, directly or indirectly, to believe in the infallibility of their King James Bible, than has any other man in the 20th century;

Geneha Kim, also a promoter of Peter Ruckman, recently wrote an online article entitled History of Fundamentalism and Ruckmanism. Under the heading "Fundamentalists Owe Their KJV Stand to Dr. Ruckman" he affirmed the following:

It must be realized that if it was not for the unyielding KJV stand of Dr. Ruckman, many Fundamentalists today would not have believed in the inspiration of the King James Bible. … If there were Fundamentalists standing for the inspiration of the KJV before Dr. Ruckman, then where were they? If there were Fundamentalists before Dr. Ruckman believing in the inspiration of the KJV, then the two Fundamentalist doctorates [sic] and the previous managing editor of the Sword of the Lord would have easily known that fact and would not have made a drastic mistake of claiming Dr. Ruckman originated the idea of the inspiration of the KJV.

Ruckman himself readily recognizes his own influence

On p. 13 of the July 1995 issue of his Bible Believers' Bulletin, Ruckman makes the following keen observation:

4. In the 1980s it was “The AV is the best translation. We USE it, but Ruckman is a liar and a slanderer, and people who follow him are Ruckmanites.”
5. In the 1990’s it is “I believe the AV is the word of God, and I believe it is a perfect translation, but I AM NOT A RUCKMANITE! I AM NOT A RUCKMANITE! OH MY GOD, NO!! I don’t think you can correct the Greek with the English! I am not a cultist! Oh God, no! YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE WHAT RUCKMAN TEACHES TO BE A BIBLE BELIEVER!”

Notice Ruckman's recent observation from his September 2008 Bible Believers' Bulletin (p. 1):

The lengths to which these cowardly apostates will go in an effort to eliminate all “Ruckmanites,” while retaining what Ruckman has taught for fifty-eight years about the King James Bible, is not only ridiculous, but “awesome.”

The Christian periodical factor


The Flaming Torch

The Flaming Torch was a Ruckman-friendly periodical for many years. In addition to articles by him, in the late 1970’s it once included Ruckman’s entire book The Mark of the Beast (spread out over several issues). When R. L. Hymers printed his book exposing Ruckmanism, there were several bitter articles in defense of Ruckman in The Flaming Torch. For example, in the July-August 1989 issue, p. 3, Brad Weniger denounced Dr. Hymers with the following deplorable language:

I am calling upon all born-again believers, who stand for the inerrancy of the KING JAMES BIBLE, to fervently pray for your repentance and genuine salvation if the status of your mental and spiritual degeneration offers any hope.

Even though R.L. Hymers has not issued any more books or pamphlets on Ruckman since the late 1980’s, The Flaming Torch never forgave him for exposing Ruckman. As recently as the April-June 2008 issue, the Torch carried an article by Herb Evans by the title “Dr. Robert Hymers and Italicized Hanky Panky.”

The Flaming Torch over the years had articles by such men as M.H. Tabb, Harold Boyd, Don Edwards, David Cloud, Herb Evans, Bruce Musselman Jr., David Reagan, Walter Beebe, Mickey Carter, Don Jasmin, Charles Perkins, Herbert Noe, Al Lacy, Allen P. Dickerson, Daryl Coats, Laurence Vance, Jack Moorman, Roy Branson, Peter Ruckman, M.H. Reynolds, Brad Weniger, and Michael O’Neal. Some of the men mentioned ended up writing books or articles in other publications promoting the inerrancy and/or inspiration of the KJV. Could it be that this Ruckman-friendly publication had a part in shaping their views?

In the Jan-Mar 1990 issue, the editor indicated on p. 1 that The Flaming Torch has had a circulation as high as 10,000 at times.

The Baptist Bible Tribune

This was never a periodical wholly given over to Ruckmanism, but at least one issue was located in which Ruckman's writings were promoted. This was in an article by the title "Only Two Bibles" written by Jim Ellis and published in the May 18, 1979 issue.

The Lockland Baptist Witness

This periodical carried articles by Ruckman dating back to the late 1950's. Ruckman acknowledged John Rawling's interest in his writings during that period. (Ruckman’s Battlefield Notes. 2003, p. 44

Other possible sources

There is likely other sources of Ruckman's writings in the 1950's and 1960's that are lost to history. One newspaper in 1962 expressed Ruckman's outreach in print as follows: "A number of his sermons have appeared in religious papers and in pamphlet form." ("Noted Artist, Evangelist To Conduct Services Here" Panama City Herald. Panama City, FL, Sept. 21, 1962, p. 6)


Ruckman not influential?

If you do not believe Ruckman was an influential man within Fundamentalism, consider the following facts:

  • Did you know that Ruckman claims to have conducted over 960 revival services in hundreds of churches?
  • Did you know that Ruckman has written 111 books and booklets (exceeding 27,000 pages, not counting articles) many of which repeatedly mention his belief in an inerrant KJV given by inspiration?
  • Did you know that in his earlier years Fundamentalists with name recognition such as J. Harold Sightler, John R. Rice, John Rawlings, Beauchamp Vick, Bob Gray, Lester Roloff, Mickey Carter, Hugh Pyle, Harold Henniger, Oswald Smith, Harvey Springer, Tim Lee, etc., opened doors for Ruckman (by inviting him to speak or speaking for him or with him in conferences, which could have been considered an endorsement of sorts)?
  • Did you know that Ruckman claims to have recorded 3,300 hours of preaching and teaching?
  • Did you know that as early as 1984 Ruckman claimed to have printed 900,000 copies of his books and 200,000 recordings of his preaching and teaching?

Final observations

The evidence that has come to light so far points to the fact that not only was Ruckman responsible for popularizing the belief that the KJV was infallible, he was also the first person in history to write apologetic literature to any extent defending the absolute inerrancy of the KJV. There were others before him who had written material I mostly endorse about the general trustworthiness of the KJV and some were against revising or replacing it, but Ruckman took it to a previously unthinkable extreme by listing multiple reasons in detail why he believed the KJV was infallible. His view was in its infancy in his 1964 book The Bible Babel, but by 1970 he expounded on it more fully in his book Manuscript Evidence. This was followed by Problem Texts in 1980, a large book of 500 pages in which he wrote at length about his new doctrine of KJV inerrancy.

In light of the fact that there is increasingly a stigma associated with Ruckman, it has become more fashionable among some KJV defenders who believe the KJV is inerrant to state that they reached such a conclusion without reading after Ruckman. Although in various cases that may be technically true, who influenced the authors they did read after? As documented in this article, there is much literature out there by authors influenced by Ruckman, and anyone who they in turn influence would have been indirectly influenced by Ruckman, perhaps without the new person realizing it.

Once again, the fact that I document someone’s connection with Ruckman in some way does not mean they should be considered a full-fledged Ruckmanite, or that they always agreed with Ruckman on matters other than what they were quoted on.

If you would like to submit a quote to amplify this study, consider the following guidelines:

  1. If a legitimate quote in its proper context reveals that Ruckman was not the first person that can be documented to have influenced others to declare the KJV to be perfect, infallible or inerrant, it will not be rejected. We want the facts to speak for themselves.
  2. If your quote comes from a source that the webmaster cannot verify or if the context is in doubt, he may ask for a scan of the quote and the title page before listing it on this page. Do not be offended if a scan is requested. We simply want to protect the integrity of this site.
  3. All quotes need to be direct quotes that name who they are attributed to. For example, the statement “there have always been those who believed in the inerrancy of the KJV” is not a direct statement of someone in particular holding to the inerrancy of the KJV at any given time.
  4. The person quoted must be regarded as a consistent KJV defender. There are a couple quotes out there from people who were not known to consistently defend the KJV, and yet they strangely stated something in passing to the effect that the KJV was inspired or perfect. For example, Talmage once stated in passing that he regarded the KJV to be a perfect Bible, yet he frequently commented on better ways the KJV could have been translated, and was known to quote at times from the Revised Version.


This entry was posted in Articles. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Who was the first prominent KJV defender to influence others to declare the KJV to be inerrant or inspired in the 20th century?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Here are a couple you might want to consider.

    The General Baptists of England published the “Orthodox Creed” In 1678. It says, “And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day.” They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, “All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life.” What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt, but what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.

    Notice this personal confession of faith by a man named Mr. Kinney (no known relation) and the date when he wrote it. LeBaron W. Kinney wrote in 1942, “When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible, there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering, and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God. We believe that no other English Version will ever take its place. Every one of the various English versions claims to be nearer the original than the others. This could not be true of more than one of them.” (Hebrew Word Studies, Acres of Rubies” page 9, published by Loizeaux Brothers).

    Will Kinney

  2. Webmaster says:

    Thank you for your participation. Here are some problems with your first quote:

    1. As the title of the article reveals, we are restricting the issue to the 20th century. Your quote was from the 17th century.
    2. The quote did not mention a specific English version. The Geneva Bible continued to be printed at least until 1644.
    3. By using the term "veracity," it indicated trustworthiness but not inerrancy. Notice the following definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veracity 1 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness 2 : power of conveying or perceiving truth 3 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy 4 : something true.
    4. You did not provide the source (book title, year of publication, page number) for your quotation.

    As to the second quote, I do not have access to the book by Kinney you quoted. Until I can see a copy for myself, I am providing some observations in the form of extracts from Dr. Hymer’s book at http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/The%20RuckmanConspiracy.txt

    By actually looking up the book of Kinney, Acres of Rubies (Loizeaux Brothers, 1942), one can see, from the quote itself, that the Torch left out important words which reveal that Kinney did not believe in the verbal inspiration of the King James Bible. Out of either trickery or ignorance (we can’t be sure which ) the Torch article conveniently leaves the following words out of the quote, "By this we mean that no other English Version will ever take its place. As a whole it is nearer to the original Greek and Hebrew than any other version."16 By adding these two sentences where they belong, right after the portion of the quote given by E. L. Bynum and copied by the Torch, we see that Kinney did not believe that the King James Bible was given by inspiration. He says, "By this we mean…" So, what Kinney meant when he spoke of the KJV as the "very Word of God" was that "no other English Version will ever take its place" and that "it is nearer to the original Greek and Hebrew than any other version," There is not a word here in Kinney’s actual quote about the KJV being given by inspiration, because Kinney did not believe that.

    By leafing through the book of Kinney, wrongly quoted out of context by The Flaming Torch, a person comes to Kinney’s belief that the original Bible was given by inspiration, rather than the KJV. Kinney said:

    The Hebrew word here rendered "good tidings" is "basar." Where God has chosen a word in the Greek of the New Testament to represent a Hebrew Old Testament word that has already been woven through the inspired writings, it seems to us wise when possible, to go back and study the original Hebrew word, rather than to turn aside to classical Greek writings, and bring in meanigs used by the uninspired writers with their defiled heathen minds. It is always profitable to compare Scripture with Scripture, Greek with New Testament Greek and Old Testament Hebrew with Scripture words, but when we go outside the inspired use of the words we are in danger of bringing in meanings which God did not intend.17

    This quote reveals that Kinney believed God chose words in Greek and Hebrew, not in English. He also called the Greek and Hebrew words "inspired writings" rather than an English translation. But most significant is his statement, "When we go outside the inspired use of the words we are in danger of bringing in meanings which God did not intend." So, Kinney believed that the Greek and Hebrew word should be studied in their context. This would show that he is in complete disagreement with the Ruckmanite idea that we can get "advanced light" from an English translation, however good that translation is.

    The final proof that LeBaron W. Kinney was not a Ruckmanite, did not believe the KJV was given by inspiration, comes from the fact that Kinney actually leaned toward the Alexandrian position, and rejected the KJV completely at times. On page 63 of Kinney’s 1942 book (same year) He is Thy Lord and Worship Thou Him, Kinney accepts the Alexandrian reading over the KJV on III John 7. He actually quotes the RV in the text on this page.18 On page 32 of this same book he corrects the King James Version on its rendering of John 13: 10, and gives the American Standard Version as the correct one.19

    In his book Acres of Rubies, Kinney goes even farther in his Alexandrian leaning. On page 115 he says, "The very last word in the Epistle to the Ephesians in most Greek texts is the word ‘incorruption’ the word rendered ‘sincerity’ in the King James Version."20 But the King James and the Textus Receptus, from which it is translated, do not end with the word "sincerity." They end with the Greek word "amen." So, Kinney favors the Alexandrian ending for Ephesians 6: 24 rather than the King James ending.


    • dunebat says:

      Additionally, view the full first quote from the 1678 Orthodox Creed of the General Baptists of England in context:

      “And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day.”

      First: was the text in ALL CAPS emphasized in the upper case by the anonymous commentator, or by the actual 1678 Orthodox Creed authors themselves?

      Second: the language is a tad ambiguous, as the language of church documents from that era may be at times when compared to the more refined, at times highly technical style of modern English. (After all, English speakers, specifically those in legal and technical fields, have had a few centuries to narrow down the vagueries of the language since 1678.) When the quote states “of which there hath NEVER [emphasis uncertain] been any doubt of their veracity, and authority,” what “their” is the quote referencing? Is it referencing an English translation of the holy scriptures, or the holy scriptures themselves in any language (be it original Palaeo-Hebrew, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin)? Holy scripture is in itself trustworthy and authoritative, as it has always been and always shall be, but are they stating that scripture itself has always been trustworthy and authoritative or that the English version of scripture is trustworthy and authoritative? A closer examination of the grammar used in the quote leads one to believe that the authors of the 1678 Orthodox Creed (provided the anonymous commentator quoted the original source word-per-word) were referring to holy writ itself, regardless whether they were referring to the original source documents or any specific English version.

      To the Webmaster, I wish to add:

      Thank you for your continuing work on this site. I was raised in a charismatic Christian household and saved in a highly fundamentalist church where a form of semi-Ruckmanism was taught. While I still hold the King James Version to be the most trustworthy and reliable of English translations available, I cannot say in good conscience that I believe it to be inerrant (as even a cursory reading of the infamous “Easter” passage, Acts 12:4, will demonstrate), and though I do believe the translators operated under the inspiration of God (as many believers who feel moved by the Spirit of the Almighty to assist in such an undertaking would be), they were human and very capable of error, especially in regards to the translation of documents originally written in languages that had not been in common use for centuries. Over the years, I have leaned more toward a preference for an increased understanding of the original source documents and the richness of meaning and subtext provided by the original languages of holy scripture that simple English, no matter how beautifully rendered, cannot accurately express.

      I would like to thank you for your efforts at exposing the cult of personality that is Ruckmanism, and for illustrating the erroneous scholarship that forms the basis of Ruckman’s personal doctrines. Keep your torch held high! Though you may have your detractors (I’ve noticed comments from several already), their loud words cannot quench the fires of historic and spiritual truth.

      • Particular Baptist says:

        Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops and some editions of the Breeches translations very liberally used “Easter” quite liberally; it is an acceptable translation. Of all the 1000 years of creeds I have read from the Vaudois (Waldenses) 1127 confession into the the twentieth century, none viewed a translation inspired; some like the 1615 Irish Articles and 1689 Second London Baptist Confession say God’s children are entitled to the scriptures translated reosnably into foreign languages.

  3. Particular Baptist says:


    Beloved brother, I commend if you can to include Ian Paisley’s 1997 work My Plea for the Old Sword. Abebooks.com has copies avalible, but it is sadly out of print. One thing I hope to do before going over to Hepzibah and Beulah is to see if it cannot be reprinted. I may have to talk to the Trinitarian Bible Society about it.

  4. Nate Beck says:

    Hmmm, why don't you do an article refuting some of Dr. Ruckman's points in his 'Handbook of Manuscript Evidence' book?

    I have not seen anyone disprove ANY of the material in that particular book yet! This is another instance where Dr. Ruckman had the edge over his critics. Critics of the King James Bible love to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their pet theories!

  5. Solo Christo says:

    Perhaps my loathing of what the Ruckman-style agent provocateurs have done is that Biblicism comes to King James Only. The classic position is the inspiration and preservation of the word in heaven and in believers (Ps. 119.81; Heb. 10.16) was kept in the Byzantine stream free of Gnosticism from which the various translators and their translations spring. Now, KJVO means a particular translation is what is limited to the originals. The Authorized Version has demostrable errors; I John 5.1 is an instance, for "born" ought to be in the perfect tense as the Darby Version suggests in the margin, "has been born", for all translators and versions can and ought to be revised to match the original, not the other way around. This means the KJVO believer now thinks this inspired, infalliable, preserved version. What is the foreign language speaker to do if such a version is missing in their tongue? Do versions from the Alexandrian stream not represent the word despite their flaws, even if like Darby or Alford they were reverent believers in Tota and Sola Scriptura? It is truly an inane and insane revision of the historic doctrine.

  6. Author/webmaster, you state "[T. DeWitt] Talmage once stated in passing that he regarded the KJV to be a perfect Bible." I agree with you that Talmage's position was not KJV-Only, as we think of it, but "in passing" may regard Talmage's view a little too lightly. (I have not researched extensively, but Talmage's view of the Revised Version probably evolved over a period of years.) The reason I suggest "too lightly" is related to his actions when the Revised Version first appeared. In June of 1881 he preached a sermon called "The New Revision. A Mutilation and a Profanation" In it he stated "I am willing to take it as a commentary, and to stand it respectfully on my book shelf behind other human opinions of the word of God. But to put it upon my private stand, or in my family room, or on my pulpit as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. I put my hand on the old book and take the oath of allegiance. So help me God!" (Newspapers reported this sermon pretty widely, and I can send you a scan if you'd like to see one. Or if you or someone you know has an account at Newspapers.com you can look it up.) After the sermon he "took an oath in the pulpit, on the King James Bible, that he would never use the revised Testament." He also made statements in sermons that would apply to the KJV — "miraculously preserved," "divinely protected in its present shape," and maybe a few others. To sum up, I don't think Talmage's statement about a "perfect Bible" would be as much "in passing" as some might think — perhaps the result of strong aversion to the Revised Version which he eventually got over he made strong statements favoing the KJV? He may have never used the RV "in the pulpit," but he did make some references to it. 

    I also found an odd outlier, but who probably had no influence in the grand scheme of things. In the 1950s a Methodist preacher in the North Georgia Conference — Thomas McSwain Elliot — wrote a column in the Atlanta Constitution. In one column, referring to the Bible used by Billy Graham in his crusades, he called the King James Version "…the Bible that God inspired holy men to write" (The Atlanta Constitution, Nov. 27, 1950, p. 9). In another he referred to it "God's divinely-inspired written word" (The Atlanta Constitution, Aug. 12, 1950, p. 13). I have no idea how widely read his columns were, or if they were influential. There were two replies of disagreement to the August statement printed in the Constitution. Again, if this is something you are interested in following up, I can send you a file.

    • Webmaster says:

      Thanks for sharing your research. The reason I mentioned that Talmage had said something “in passing” that Ruckmanites have exploited, is because the topic he was preaching on was not the KJV or even Bible versions. It was a very brief “rabbit trail” in a sermon. Here is some more context:

      I take up this Book of King James’s translation. I consider it to be a perfect Bible, but here are skeptics who want it torn to pieces, and now with this Bible in my hand, let me tear out all those portions which the skepticism of this day demands shall be torn out. What shall go first? “Well,” says some one in the audience, “take out all that about the creation, and about the first settlement of the world.” Away goes Genesis…

      I take up this Book of King James’s translation. I consider it to be a perfect Bible, but here are skeptics who want it torn to pieces, and now with this Bible in my hand, let me tear out all those portions which the skepticism of this day demands shall be torn out. What shall go first? “Well,” says some one in the audience, “take out all that about the creation, and about the first settlement of the world.” Away goes Genesis… (Talmage, Vol. 18, 1900, p. 225).

      As the context demonstrates, the topic was not Bible versions. He was speaking of the infidels and skeptics that wanted to get rid of the Bible. Talmage at times quoted approvingly from the Revised Version, at least into the mid 1890’s (but never preached from it as far as I know). It is obvious that whatever he meant by using the word “perfect” in relation to the King James, he did not mean it in the full and logical extent as is the case in Ruckman’s writings.

      I just looked at the one scan on your blog of the brief column by Thomas Elliot. It is very interesting, because he refers to the KJV as “the divinely-inspired written word of God.” My observations are as follows:

      1. What he wrote consists of two brief paragraphs. He made a statement, and challenged others who doubted to respond. Since he was so brief, it is hard to tell how literal he meant his statement to be taken.
      2. The only concern he expressed was applied to the Bible in general, (not a translation). His concern:
      A. “I am aware that scoffers have claimed the Holy Bible to be a book of humcombe. Proofs of their claims are wholly lacking. On the other hand, proofs of the Bible’s divine origin are numerous as the leaves on the trees.”
      3. He then refers to the Bible three more times (once as simply “the Book”) and the inserting the words “King James Version” after Holy Bible.
      4. The concern he expressed was not related to a translation, but to the Bible in general, which makes his statement puzzling, hastily expressed, or perhaps as a provocative statement to elicit reaction, or going along with the general sentiment of the time, that if you referred to the Bible, you more than likely meant it in the form of the King James Version.

      It would be interesting if more of his writings could be located to shed some light on his thinking. You mentioned another article he wrote, but I do not have access to it.

  7. Timothy says:

    I actually met Dr. Homer Massey in 1981 shortly after he published his booklet and had an amiable friendship woth him for nearly two years. Ironically, he apostasized and became a Southern Baptist and a professor of religion at Liberty University where a plethora of Bible versions are used.

  8. greg basch says:

    Is the majority text considered the received text? What is the ancient text?

  9. For those interested in William Aberhart's The Latest of Modern Movements: Or What About The Revised Version Of The Bible?, I found it is online here:



  10. Regarding Aberhart, I also found this, though it is second hand. It shows that are least some people thought Aberhart and his followers taught the King James was inspired — whether or not they did so. During the time of the RSV controversy, Rev. J. E. Harris of Calgary wrote to the editor of the Calgary (Alberta, Canada) Herald (Tuesday, December 30, 1952, p. 4) to correct some misconceptions about Fundamentalism. In his third paragraph he writes, “Mr. Dean’s criticism is not a criticism of Fundamentalist teaching at all, but of the teaching of the late Hon. William Aberhart. It is not Fundamentalists, but Aberhartians, who hold that the King James version is inspired.”

    (Basil Dean had written, in the December 6 issue, that “in order to justify their position that not only the Bible itself, but the King James translation specifically, is literally inspired, the fundamentalists have to make some astounding assumptions.”)

  11. Engaging in research in Canadian newspapers for information on Aberhart and Buch, I found that Buch had written 3 articles in 1953 in reference to the RSV.

    “Rev. Mark Buch, pastor of the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle, Vancouver, has forwarded a series of three articles on his opinions as to the true Bible and its origin. The Province prints these articles in the hope that they, along with the recent series on ‘The Revised Standard Version,’ by Dr. Ernest Marshall Howse of the United Church, will help its readers to draw their own conclusions.”

    In the first article he discusses three theories of inspiration; the fact we don’t possess the originals, but that God has preserved his word; and the pure and impure streams of the Scriptures. He sets the Revised Standard Version in the impure stream, but does not yet discuss the AV/KJV per se. He does write, however, “To say then that one believes in the verbal inspiration of the original only, holds little encouragement today for those who grope for the truth, for what good are inspired originals which are lost? Have we then lost the faultless Word of God? No!
    “Tabernacle Pastor Discusses Theories,” by Mark Buch, in The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 6, 1953, p. 21

    “The big question to us then is not, ‘Did God inspire the original manuscripts?” We know that He did, but has God preserved that perfect revelation through time in copying and translation? Again and again the Word itself emphatically states He has…I have now brought you along the path of pure Scriptures to the era of the translation commonly known as the Authorized Version of the Bible. Thus you see the basis of the Authorized Version is the oldest and purest in the world. It springs from a line and history altogether different from the spurious line, such as the Revised Standard Version.”
    “Christians Took Scrolls Into Alps,” by Mark Buch, in The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 13, 1953, p. 21

    “Has God preserved His Word intact for this generation? If it were lost in the passing of the original manuscripts, then with it has also passed the doctrine of individual responsibility to God. Then at best we shall drift on and on until we become shipwrecked upon the dark reefs of eternity’s unknown night…Let me sum up this article by saying that the Authorized Version is a correct translation of a perfect copy of an infallible original.”
    “King James Version Defended As Best,” by Mark Buch, in The Vancouver Province, Saturday, June 20, 1953, p. 22

    Anyone with access to Newspapers.com could see the articles here:

    The following is second-hand, but includes what is purported to be a quote of Buch (which I put in italics for ease of notice).

    Notice of at a protest rally at People’s Fellowship Tabernacle, “Mark Buch will cite objections to key texts, and deal with original sources, ‘to prove why the King James’ version is the divinely-preserved Word of God to English-speaking peoples of the world.’”
    “Protest Rally Called Against New Version,” The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, November 1, 1952, p. 13

    All may make of it what they will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *