Ruckmanism vs KJV Only

[Walt]

This topic is currently being touched upon in several different threads.  At least one individual claims that anyone who is KJV only is a Ruckmanite.  Others are claiming that there is a difference.  What think ye, Hacker Nation?

Much of this depends upon what one means by KJV only.

By definition, a Ruckmanite in general would be a follower of Ruckman - in relation to the KJV, calling it "inspired" and teaching that it is "advanced revelation" is being a Ruckmanite.

Most of the KJV-only people I know do NOT hold to that position -- they take the position that the KJV is a wonderful translation of the preserved text - the text that was in use down through the centuries.  Translations made from the critical text are regarded as non-trustworthy.  But none of this is Ruckman; this latter belief pre-dates Ruckman.

Where did that latter belief actually begin, Walt?
As to my study of the issue, it is a fairly recent (modern) view.

Depends upon how "recent" is recent... Defense of the KJV against other translations didn't need to begin until other translations existed, so KJV defense started, to my knowledge, after the RSV came out... mid-1800s?

Ruckman started his KJV is inspired in the late 1960s or early 1970s.  I have a study in which someone looked up statements about the Bible versus about the KJV, and showed that calling KJV "inspired" began around 1970, which is certainly modern.  I need to find that study write-up; it was instructive.