Many descriptions online of Ruckmanism and Ruckmanites are strawmen. In fact, they stem from what is pretty much an overtly simplified misconception of a single belief or two: the belief in double inspiration (which isn't a term we coined) and advanced revelation of the King James.
Ruckmanites are a varied bunch, despite our detractors. We are not a monolith. In fact, we fight over which things Ruckman actually got right and what he got wrong, because we do not think he was right in everything. We are Ruckmanites because we follow one book, the King James Bible. You cannot reduce Ruckmanism to a single catchphrase of "double inspiration". But here are common questions about us and what we believe.
Do Ruckmanites really believe in double inspiration?
Yes. With caveats.
It is a misconception and misunderstanding that Ruckmanites believe that only the KJV is inspired, or that only the originals and then the KJV was inspired. Ruckmanites hold a wide range of beliefs, because the only standard is the King James, and of course, there are many interpretations.
Some of us believe that inspiration was passed down in preservation and stopped in the KJV, and does not pass on the modern versions. This is the traditional view.
Some of us prefer the term "continual inspiration" instead in order to describe our belief. (Jesse Kragiel)
However, the more learned of us also often define inspiration significantly differently than what most people believe inspiration to be or look like.
If Ruckmanites believe in double inspiration, does that mean Ruckmanites don't believe in preservation?
We believe in preservation. Just because we believe the English is superior does not mean we don't believe in preservation. That's a negative inference fallacy.
The words had to be preserved to get to the KJV translators' hands.
This is more reliant on one's definition of inspiration. Because we believe that inspiration causes preservation, and preservation preserves inspiration.
If Ruckmanites believe in double inspiration, does that mean Ruckmanites don't believe in inerrant copies and translations?
Patently false. The above should answer that as well. But yes, we believe that copies can be inerrant and translations as well.
So if you believe in preservation, and inerrancy of copies, why do you believe the King James is superior to the originals?
Simple. We can read it. You can't read the originals. They don't exist. You can't read the original languages, they are dead languages.
Because we don't believe in a deistic God, but a very active one, God is also actively bringing us the Bible today. Our God is the God of the living, not the dead.
In essence, as Ruckman said, paraphrased, "The force of the Greek! The force of the Greek! Have you stopped to consider if God wanted you to have the full force of the ENGLISH?"
There is more to it than that. The King James is also self-authenticating. But that is beyond the scope of this post.
And there's the fact that translations are supposed to be better than the originals. We cover that under the "advanced revelation" question.
Okay, so what is inspiration to a Ruckmanite?
There are often two passages used for inspiration, 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16.
2 Peter 1:21
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Some Ruckmanites would not disagree. But many would. Why?
2 Timothy 3:15
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
Hebrew texts were stored in the Temple. Common Jews had access to Aramaic translation according to the Talmud, and some had Greek Septuagints. So what Timothy had were most likely translations! But it was for sure he didn't have the original texts.
Notice the verb form for 3:16. It says it "is given", present tense. We compare other verses in order to see what that means.
"By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened."
1 Corinthians 11:15
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
Long hair and frost are never given just once. They are given continually.
Let's look at Job 32:8:
“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
This is Elihu talking. Elihu will become the author of the book. But he hasn't written anything yet.
If one recalls, Job is the first book of the Bible chronologically written, or in other words, it was written first. So there was no scripture at hand.
So inspiration was already happening before the Bible was even written.
And we see how inspiration is defined in the verse, it is Almighty God giving understanding. It is not a revelation, which are dreams.
Gail Riplinger according to her historical studies of the King James translators and the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says that the translators believed "inspiration" to be "divine influence", hence why they translated Job 32:8 as "inspiration". It is implied they did not insert any inspiration related terminology in 2 Peter 1:21, instead of opting for Spirit, they deliberately put Ghost. And of course, the very word "inspiration" does not appear anywhere near the passage.
So it is simple. We believe that the King James translators were given understanding from God in order to translate the text. It is not a new revelation, which are dreams and visions, as defined by the Bible.
But to some of us, we believe that every point of inspiration need inspiration, not only major translations. The copyists needed inspiration, they need understanding in order to know which words to copy. The printers need inspiration, they needed understanding in order to know which words to print. Inspiration is preservation. Or rather inspiration causes preservation. And in turn preservation preserves inspiration, because understanding of the Almighty is found in the Bible.
So what about advanced revelations in the King James?
Because we have an active God today, God revealed things in the King James text not present or hidden in the original languages.
However, it isn't necessarily advanced revelation, but what translation does.
Remember that revelation in the Bible is a dream or vision. The King James translators, as far as we know, did not get those.
The Bible is like a sword. The more precise it is, the sharper it is. Translation makes a word more precise, it turns the vague Hebrew or vague Greek into a more defined, precise word in many cases. (Though it also generalizes some words). Iron sharpeneth iron.
People say these are things lost in translation. Yes, correct, the unneeded things.
A translation correctly done in the Bible is superior to the originals and is pleasing to God.
These are all mentions of the word "translate" in the Bible. Notice that each verse depicts the successor as better than the original.
2 Samuel 3:10
“To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.”
"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
The King James translators used this word deliberately. The word "translate" was already meaning to be language interpretation, yet they used that word in order to say the latter is better than the original.
An example of the things uncovered by translation is as follows:
Hebrew sheol meant "grave". Samuel rose from sheol when Saul contacted the witch of Endor.
Sheol was translated to Greek hades. Hades in Greek myth had a river of fire and a paradise called Elysium. This is an advanced revelation not present in Hebrew to the Greeks. Why? Because Jesus confirms there was a paradise or Abraham's bosom in hell.
Now, hades is translated into hell, which is derived from hel. Hel is the afterlife of the Norse. Norse afterlife is separated into many realms, and this reflects the division of realms in the Bible as a whole, there are three heavens (sky, space, abode of God) , and three hells (grave or Sheol, nether or Hades, pit or Tartarus).
The advanced revelation already was happening when it was translated in Greek. The same thing happens with English.
Are there any historic positions that support this? If so, what are they?
Ruckmanites believe a range from originals were inspired but inspiration was passed down all the way to King James to inspiration being given several times to inspiration being given to this very day.
But for the more typical Ruckmanite who believes what people think are closest to double inspiration,
The ancient Jewish position is that the original writings were inspired, Ezra's Aramaic translation was inspired (Sanhendrin 21b, Talmud), the Greek Septuagint was inspired.
So by believing the KJV is inspired is a spiritual successor of that ancient historic view.
We don't always believe only the originals and KJV are the only ones inspired. A lot of us believe that every accepted text is inspired. Such as the Old Latin Vulgate or the Vetus Latina, or Luther's German translation. The Hebrew Masoretic text and Greek Textus Receptus (though there's a catch with this one) were inspired as well.
Several reports of Ruckmanite sounding statements about the King James in particular before Ruckman in 1950s have been found as well. Geneha Kim has compiled history in his book Ruckmanism Ruckus. John Bunyan, the writer of the Pilgrim's Progress, talks about the English being the exact copy of the originals.
On the other hand, the "originals only view" is apparently only found since Griesbach in the 1800s and much more modern. Some trace it to a Catholic priest named Richard Simon (video)
A Biblical, KJVO Response To Mark Ward's Authorized: Use and Misuse Of The King James Bible
A Biblical, KJVO Response to Mark Ward's Authorized: The Use and Misuse Of The King James Bible
By Samuel Garcia
Should the King James be updated?
The book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward believes it should be.
But to boil it down to the basics, the book pushes for a new translation from the acceptable Textus Receptus to replace the King James so that it is easier for the English speakers of today to understand. It also postulates that the New King James and other easier to read translations from the correct texts will tide us over before the postulated new translation will come. This is often called a TR Only position, howbeit a more consistent form of it.
Nothing against the author of the book. He takes a respectful stance towards the King James. For that, I commend him. I will be mainly addressing his blog post that records KJVO responses to his work. 
What Is The Point of Bible Reading?
Mark Ward states:
“If the point of Bible reading were Anglophilic enculturation or Early Modern English decoding practice, then giving people KJVs would be ideal. But if the point is understanding what God said, then people should be given the Bible in their English, not someone else’s.” 
What does the Bible say?
2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
It says it is to be approved. It says it takes work as a workman. It says that the word is of objective truth.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether the King James can or should be updated, but whether or not translations are a preference and if the King James is the word of God and objective truth itself.
This is why we are KJVO, we hold to an objective truth. If that’s not why you are KJVO, you’ve missed the point. Not because we like the language which is subjective (though the poetic aesthetics behind has an objective measure). Not because we say the texts can be trusted (Which standard do we trust to make that assumptions of the text?). Not even because our trusted leaders say this is it (as they are frail sinful humanity). Whether the King James is preserved and inspired is closer, but even those, this reason underlies it.
We are King James Only because we believe it is the objective truth itself.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Mark Ward states,
“When I encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to cease insisting on the use of the KJV, I do so, as my favorite linguist John McWhorter said of Shakespeare, ‘not because we are uncultured or incapable of effort, but because language is always moving.’” 
Since the Bible is the objective truth, are there any patterns in history or the Bible that account for language shifts? Let’s look.
When Did New Major And Accepted Translations Of The Bible Happen In History?
We as KJVOnlyists often say that the King James is the word of God for the English speaking peoples. And it’s not incorrect. However, it does detract from the fact that English is the world’s global language today. Every country has an English representative in their population, even if it is not their major language. 
There are many major and accepted translations long before the King James. The anti-KJVO sometimes make the strawman that KJVOs believe that Paul and Jesus used the KJV (they did used KJV readings when comparing OT references in the NT, but that’s for another time) or that right after the Hebrew and Greek originals, the KJV came to be, out of nowhere. The fact of the matter is, there are many major and accepted translations before the King James, and in fact, a deeper study why the King James is the final iteration of God’s Word is reliant on it having many predecessors, but that is beyond the scope of the work. (Addendum: predecessors here include previous English translations, and will not be covered)
What then is a major and what is an accepted translation?
Accepted is what we call when there is a definitive translation in that language. Often, KJVO-like movements rally behind said translations.
If you thought the King James is the only Bible with a movement behind it, even today, you are very wrong. There were accepted Bibles before the King James. The Hebrew (with Aramaic) and Greek are different language Bibles. Syriac Old Testament Peshitta was accepted, the Syriac New Testament revision in the 5th century not so much it seems . Luther’s German translation is considered the equivalent of a King James translation for Germany. The Dutch Statenvertaling  and Spanish Reina Valera (original one, not the modern one)  were the past accepted translations for their respective languages and now are outdated. And these two being “outdated” are what it seems to be the state Mark Ward thinks the King James has reached. We will get back to this later.
And what is a major translation? If it dominated an era, sometimes even globally, then it is major. Hebrew and Greek are again the most obvious major ones. Latin Vulgate is a major one.
The clearest indication we have in scripture when new major and accepted translation comes about is when the main language ceases to be the main language.
No, it doesn’t mean when Early Modern English (which the King James is in) becomes a more Modern English. It means when the actual language changes majorly akin to from English to Chinese. It is that type of change. If Mandarin becomes the trade language of the world (many reasons why that won’t happen, but that is beyond the scope of this article), then King James may be overthrown, since no one would speak English.
So whatever Mark Ward is proposing, it definitely isn’t a new trade language translation, but a translation of the existing trade language that already has the definitive translation. His suggestion breaks the established pattern.
This brings up my statement about the King James and the Bible being objective truth. Does that mean objective truth can change? That’s like saying God can change, right? If there are major and accepted translations before the King James that are on par with the King James, then that means objective truth and the Bible changed! And this cannot be accepted.
Well, if you the Bible is truth, and you have many translations are valid, you do believe that objective truth is many. If you believe Jesus is God, Who came down from heaven and became Man, you believe objective Truth Himself changed forms. And He also grew in favor and stature in the sight of God and man. Growing is a change, isn’t it? Maybe God is more dynamic than you think. God doing things differently and in progress and in steps, such as making the universe in seven days does not mean He changes His deep nature. And thus we lift that principle of dynamism and apply it here.
But rather than saying we can do any sort of translation we want based on our want or supposed need, rather, it is the truth itself that will tell us when to make a new translation. And based on the proposal and historic pattern of Bible transmission, no, now is not the time. God raised up translations based on His terms, not ours.
King James Translators And Tyndale: A Common, Vernacular Language? Or?
The main drive of the book is promoting an update to the Bible for the plough boy of the street as Tyndale himself remarked. Authorized author uses I Corinthians 14 to make his case. He also brings up mentions of the King James translators and Tyndale’s statements  on the matter.
"I defy the Pope and all his laws, if God spare my life, I will make a boy that driveth the plough know more of the Scripture than thou dost."
1 Corinthians 14:12-19 (bold mine)
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
The direct context, as the author admits, is not about the written word. It is obvious from the text it is not about language, but spoken tongues, in which we will look at next if there are differences. But the author is right that edification is through words of understanding.
But does the Bible itself say anything else about language and related concepts?
Let us bring up first mentions:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
We see tongues are for division for each nation.
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
We see that the first time we see language, it is a uniting force.
We see that speech and tongue are also related:
Exodus 4:10 (bold mine)
And Moses said unto the Lord , O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.
We can surmise that tongues and speech are the dialects, and language is where those tongues derive. This is further supported by the following verses with the words.
Acts 22:2-3 (bold mine)
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
It says the Hebrew tongue, not the Hebrew language. Aramaic is agreed to be the language spoken by the Jews, who are Hebrews, in this time, but a decidedly Hebrew dialect of Aramaic. Tongues are for dividing nations. Language is the mother of those tongues.
Then we see that British English is a tongue. Modern English is a tongue. King James Bible English is a tongue. But they are all the English language.
Now that we have Biblically differentiated tongues and languages, are there any other relevant verses about languages?
A particular passage shows us in the same contextual vein, that is, not directly about the word, as Corinthians:
Zephaniah 3:9 (bold mine)
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
The King James and Tyndale may have aimed at readability, but they also seemed to understand that the Bible was also to be a pure language. The King James translators also endeavored to make one principal translation .
Translators to the Reader, Preface to the King James Version 1611:
"The Best Things Have Been Calumniated"
"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk): but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
Studying the preface is very beneficial. You will notice there are no "thou's" in the preface and "thee's" are mostly referencing more ancient quotes. You will see that "you" already had replaced "thou" wholesale. That's because the King James English is not the same as Elizabethan English, but older, more basic form of English, which we refer to as Biblical English. Therefore, making it updated to the most modern grammar and vocabulary was not the main drive of the translators, but having a principal translation. It was secondary. The fact we read it still today means they have succeeded.
Our English is corrupt. The language has shifted. No one can deny that. But has it shifted away from readability? Who sets the standard for readability?
How is the Bible English a pure language?
Remember the "thee's" and "thou's"? They are singular second person pronouns. If you can recall from grammar class, the second person "you" is the only second person pronoun, and is both plural and singular. But "thou" is always singular, and "you" is then primarily plural. Hebrew and Greek languages have an equivalent to "thee's" and "thou's". Differentiating between singular and plural is crucial to many doctrines and even salvation doctrines. 
To be fair, there is a "KJV update" called the Updated KJV (UKJV) that makes the differentiation using "you" for singular and "all of you" for plural. It also has other changes, but far more minor than major English translations. 
But as with all things, everything balanced and everything holistic there's more to it than just differentiation of pronouns. (It also arguably adds words, but anywho).
The poetic quality of the King James is precise. The above differentiation adds syllables and disturbs the poetry. This poetic elegance is often used to claim Shakespeare edited the text. It is also claimed Francis Bacon had a hand in the text because of its mathematical elegance, which we will not cover as it is beyond the scope of this work.
This poetry is often derided by naysayers, but it is important psychologically. Poetry is the best way for memorization of the words. The power of the King James is not only spiritual but scientific! 
Having a language for worship distinct from secular tongue is important. It is arguable that losing the sacred has its side effects of more disrespect towards the Bible.
The Bible is the standard to hinder the corruption. Authorized touches on that KJVOs believe that the King James needs to raise people up to the Bible rather than dumbing down the Bible to the people’s level. It also dismisses it. Translation of the Bible in a language often literally standardizes that language’s grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. It is arguable that we need the King James to re-purify the English.
The intuitive desire for a pure language is not only limited to the English King James believers. Believe it or not, wanting the Bible to go back to the original pure languages of paleo Hebrew and koine Greek, which are not at all modern Hebrew and modern Greek, is the same desire. We just believe that God did to the English the same as God did to the Hebrew and Greek.
Let us go back to the history of the accepted and major texts.
The Koine Greek the apostles used for the New Testament was not their current Greek, the Greek in their streets. That is a misconception. The Greek in the streets in the apostles' day were different dialects, Attic dialect, and one a Latinized-Greek hybrid dialect.  It wasn't a pure Greek. Koine Greek was a step back to Alexander's time, 400 years earlier, simplifying the Attic Greek. 
This is the same vein as the King James translators returning to an earlier, more basic form of English. The King James did not use the English of the streets.
The Syriac Peshitta was a translation of the Bible into Aramaic. Its Old Testament translation was accepted. However, the latter New Testament translation revision in the 5th century did not get as much traction and is not considered accepted by many, particularly by Textus Receptus people.
If you recall where we left off with the Spanish Reina Valera and Dutch Statenvertaling.
The Reina Valera was a translation made very close to the time the King James was translated, often using some of the same texts. It was translated into Castilian Spanish, the Spanish of European Spain, which is a basic form of Spanish compared to Latin America Spanish, much like how the British English of the King James is. It, too, is considered to be the King James of the Spanish by many until recent times. 
The Dutch Statenvertaling was also made around the same time as the King James, using many of the same texts. 
Both are outdated. No one in the Americas speak the Castilian Spanish anymore or the Dutch in the latter. Reina Valera has many competing modern editions now, from the Gomez to the 1960. Neither do we read the Greek.
But that’s just it. The Spanish and Dutch and Greek aren’t the top languages anymore. Spanish still has a lot of speakers, however, the previous Bible pattern in history is that it seems there is always one dominant word of God in the major language of that contextual era. The Jews started to write the Bible in Aramaic, which we see passages from Ezra, Jeremiah, and Daniel in Aramaic, in the Babylon exile when Hebrew language became used less and less. 
Even if those are "outdated", someone who knows modern Spanish or modern Dutch can use the built-in dictionaries. What are these built-in dictionaries? Read on.
Textual Criticism Separate From Translation?
The book says it has nothing to do with textual criticism, only translation. While there is a distinction, the two are arguably intertwined in their fundamental parts and micro actions. Both deal with interpreting the text. While textual criticism does deal with finding the best texts, and Mark Ward implies one can simply use the same texts the King James does, and particularly the Textus Receptus (which that, too, is a problematic notion as I will show in a next section), to make a new translation.
The micro actions of textual criticism is picking the better words from the best texts. The micro actions of translation is picking the best words from today to for a word. Both are picking which word is best.
But why textual criticism even in its larger form will be encountered is because of below, there is more than one.
Interestingly, the author states that one should not engage KJVOnlyists on textual criticism . And that the whole premise is based on differing human authorities.
That assumes, however, that the Bible does not say anything about textual criticism. Far from it. But again, beyond the scope of this work.
It’s not our enemies who we should be worried about, but lukewarm gentle sheep in wolves clothing.
The long game. Let’s play it.
Textus Receptus and King James Texts Used For Translation
There’s a misconception that the King James was directly translated from Hebrew and Greek.
There’s a misconception that the Textus Receptus was one single text. It, too, had many versions.
The Hebrew Masoretic too had at least two major versions. 
It is also forgotten that the King James relied also on six other language translations and six previous English translations. In fact, the translators were correcting a Bishop’s Bible as they translated. The Bishop’s Bible was the base. They did not start with a blank slate.
Scrivener’s Textus Receptus is a Textus Receptus that fills in the missing verses of previous Textus Receptus. It is literally a translation of the King James back into Greek.
The New King James Bible does not conform to this translation process. Neither has it been proven to be completely free of textual criticism and critical text readings and even copyright conflict with the KJV that prevents it from being purer.
But Mark Ward’s implied adherence to the TR only position is also in question, which I address nearer to the end of the article.
False Friends? Language Shifts In The English
A key concept of the book is the term “false friends”. It means words that are not necessarily archaic, but that have changed meaning as languages have shifted. That’s not to say Authorized also addresses archaic language, but the main focus is on these false friends.
This is a main go-to verse:
I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.
What in the world is a besom?
Before we define it, does the Bible say anything about language shifts and archaic words? Yes!
I Samuel 9
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
Note it says that when the book of Samuel (my namesake) was written, the current word was prophet, not seer. So we see that the Bible knows and acknowledges that language does shift, that language that is archaic is present in the text itself.
19 And Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer: go up before me unto the high place; for ye shall eat with me to day, and to morrow I will let thee go, and will tell thee all that is in thine heart.
Yet even with acknowledging that, the Bible continues to use the archaic word! So the Bible must prize accuracy over updating to the most current word.
So, how then should we deal with with “false friends”?
In Mark’s record of KJVO responses to his blog, he states that explaining “false friends” was not ideal.
But the Bible says a man can help someone interpret it.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Notice the Ethiopian eunuch was able to read the text. We don’t know if the text is an old copy with archaic language or a new copy with updated language. All we know is he could read it, just that he could not understand it. What does the Spirit tell Phillip to do? Explain it.
And this fits more with the context I Corinthians 14, as Phillip is speaking, than it does with writing a new translation.
But there is actually a better idea, one that bypasses the need for any man. One that fulfills the command to study to show yourself approved unto God.
Solution to the False Friends Dilemma While Being Truly King James Only
If the Bible is objective truth, and knows about archaic wording and language shifts, then we can surmise it must have a self-defining feature for its words. And it’s a tool I’ve been using here in this article and many workmen engaged in Bible study of one and only Book without relying on lexicons and dictionaries.
Cross referencing and contextual definitions!
We know cross referencing, that is, finding a verse with the same keyword, but what are contextual definitions?
My middle school 6th grade English teacher in public school taught me this. So I’m assuming it’s a basic grammar discipline. But I know Baptists are horrendous spellers, so I don’t have my hopes up.
Let us take then the word “shambles”, which appears once in the King James. What does it mean?
You can use the dictionary, look up etymology (word history), or whatnot.
Or we can just look at the text.
Shambles is simply, a place that sells things to be eaten.
That’s it. No need to overcomplicate it.
Some will say, it should be translated as a meat market! And so on and so forth. Well, if it was just meat, then does that mean the point of the verse is limited to just animal flesh? The definition is generic enough that the point stands.
Let’s go to another passage:
Isaiah 58:3 (bold mine)
Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.
Another word, what is exact?
Let’s look at the first mention of the word in the King James.
Deuteronomy 15:2 (bold mine)
And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD’S release.
Contextually, we see that to exact something, it is the opposite of a creditor releasing his neighbor of a debt, as shown by the not.
To exact something means to take it.
To "exact all your labours" then means to take the money that is owed to you for your work.
Oxford’s English Dictionary agrees :
BrE /ɪɡˈzækt/ ; NAmE /ɪɡˈzækt/
exact something (from somebody) to demand and get something from somebody
This is what we call, the King James Bible’s Built-In Dictionary. The Bible is self-sufficient. This takes care of both readability and accuracy. The built-in dictionary has one listing all references to a keyword and finding what associations and relationships of that word with other words to find the full picture of what God associates the word with. 
Without this in-built dictionary, we will always need a new translation for every wind of change.
One may argue that is creating a language barrier with a different vocabulary and slang from the world. Yes, that’s the point! Think Biblically. We don’t put down British English people for their slang and vocabulary. Be trained in the pure language of the Bible, think in the pure language of the Bible.
So what is a besom?
I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.
A besom is something that sweeps. No need to overcomplicate it. If you will, a broom.
False "False Friends" Quiz
Arguably, many examples given by Mark Ward are not caused by language shifts independent from the King James, but by the language shifted by the King James itself! The King James sets many of the new definitions of the false friends through its own dictionary. Remember, the Bible makes its own language. And that there wasn't a standardized English dictionary until after the KJV. Many secular authorities attests it is the KJV that formed the vocabulary.
This is not surprising as the King James coins new words as well. The Bible controls language, not the language controlling the Bible.
I went through his quiz on his website, here:
want - 1611 definition: lack AFTER KJV: desire, pine, wish
It is arguable the King James made this language shift. Also for people who love to push the many definitions of ancient languages, lack makes desire.
halt - 1611 definition: limp AFTER KJV: stop, pause, vacillate
Don't limp people stop all the time?
commendeth - 1611 definition: showcases AFTER KJV: proves, recommends, demonstrates
What in the world is the difference between DEMONSTRATES and SHOWCASES? Also the author says it is the KJV that popularized the word. Does it ever occur to him that the KJV made the current definition, too?
apt - 1611 definition: able AFTER KJV: eager, inclined, willing
APTitude. This is probably one that is a real language shift. However, in built dictionary of the Bible solves the actual definition.
careful - 1611 definition: worried AFTER KJV: full of cair, attentive
Does not worry cause attentiveness?
convenient- 1611 definition: appropriate AFTER KJV: easy, reasonable, favorable to one's comfort
Appropriate things are often easy and reasonable.
remove- 1611 definition: move AFTER KJV: take away, detach, confiscate
Taking away doesn't involve moving? Re-move. If you move something, you have to take it away from its original place. Not doing so would be shaking it.
spoil- 1611 definition: rob AFTER KJV: ruin, corrupt
A lot of verses give the contextual meaning of rob already. And does not robbery ruin things afterwards? For example, spoiled milk means I was robbed of the mill's flavor and dietary sustenance. It's not that far off and arguably is the KJV's intent towards the language.
wait - 1611 definition: pay attention to AFTER THE KJV: await, expect, patiently hope for
Don't you pay attention to things you await and expect on? Waiter is also still a modern word, and waiters waiting is understood, but it's disingenuous to say "waiting" doesn't involve waiting.
miserable- 1611 definition: pitiable AFTER THE KJV: depressed, miserly, stingy
Aren't pitiable people also depressed, miserly, stingy? Again arguably the intent of the KJV on language to show that negativity accompanies those without Christ.
A lot of these are false false friends. A lot of the so-called definitions are synonyms of the older definitions. A lot of definitions are things one reasonably would expect with a word, even expanding the word.
NOTICE too that the differences between 1611 definitions and modern definitions are less than the differences between a KJV and modern versions.
Again, repeating the viewpoint:
KJV did not use Elizabethan English but its own brand of English called Biblical English. This means it has its own definitions and dictionary.
Dictionaries weren't standardized until after the KJV. It is arguably the KJV that standardized the definitions, and thus OED and 1611 definitions were not the final definitions intended by the KJV.
Therefore most "false friends" are by design of the KJV, not because the language has shifted.
Bible controls the language, not language the Bible.
Uniting With Non-KJVO Baptists?
Rather than Mark Ward himself, it seems, this is usually the driving force of Independent Baptists who agree with the book, allowing non-KJVO Baptists to join together with KJVO Baptists to reach others and the world for the gospel or something. 
Other than the blatant ecumenicalistic tendency and slippery slope away from the local church and ignoring that the whole of Christianity today has not come under one banner even though we all claim Christ as Lord, it’s a noble sounding cause.
What causes unity according to the Bible? Let’s whip out that dictionary. Are there any verses that talk about unity and language?
We've already gone over them:
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord , to serve him with one consent.
Establishing the same language and speech is essential to unity. Having multiple translations will not unite any church. It hasn't before, it will not now.
Let us look at actual history when the church, not just Baptists, were in unity.
Ever hear of the Great Awakenings? The revivals of old?
What sort of same language did everyone share? It was the King James Bible.
It was the time when interdenominational preaching went on.
George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Billy Sunday, DL Moody, and many of them, were not Baptists. But Baptists came to hear them and Baptists were made by their preaching. because they all preached from the same Book.   
And we Baptists honor their memory.
Can We Use Translations Other Than The King James For Study?
Baptists pore over dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, sermons, theology books.
The danger is when one uses those things to override the Bible, when one stops looking whether what is said is false based on other verses in the Bible.
The greatest danger is when something presents itself to be the Bible. But it’s not perfect. This is what having many translations do.
Sometimes, I’m more comfortable saying one should study The Message because everyone knows it is not a Bible but a paraphrase  that can only at best, reach the level of a commentary.
As long you’ve exhausted the dictionary built-in, you probably can start looking at other sources. But often, it is enough.
As long you don’t consider other translations actual Bibles, only at best containing the word of God rather than being the word of God, at worst, perversions of Satan. But meet in the middle and consider it a work of a sinful human.
Then, pray about it. But I often just stop at the first step because that built-in dictionary is rich, let me tell you.
Can the King James Ever Be “Updated”?
Well, it has already been “updated” after 1611. Bible-believing editors have standardized spellings, reverse printer errors, and changing fonts (from the calligraphic style to the New Romans font everyone is familiar with when typing documents). The Pure Cambridge 1900 Edition of the King James seems to be the most recent accepted one, though 1769 edition is often touted as the standard text. 
These are very different changes from modern versions, which are often major textual changes. Entire phrases are added, subtracted, and reworked. God preserved His words, so this meddling of the modern versions are not a sign of preservation.
One possible change that is in the spirit of readability without adding or subtracting actual words are adding quotation marks where they are necessary. A possible instance below:
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
With quotation marks in the correct place:
How do ye say, “We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?” Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
With quotation marks in the wrong place as it can be read that way:
How do ye say, “We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.”
Quotation marks were not in common use during 1611, so an argument could be made. However, I would not dare undertake that as to not risk of Revelation commandment of adding plagues or name in the book of life removed. It might be the same change as adding a chapter and verse system or italics, or it might not.
Others say since the context is enough, then they’re not really needed. Well, just a suggestion. I'm not dogmatic about it, nor will I commit to it.
Addressing Publicly Stated Motivations
In his Gospel Coalition article, Mark Ward states:
“Don Carson pled with them for realism 40 years ago, and James White urged them to trust modern translations 20 years ago. But I sense that conservative evangelicalism has now given up on critiquing King James Version-onlyism.” 
Alarm bells should be ringing. Mark mentions James White, who does not support the TR text. Is he placing himself as a successor of them?
He says to the readers:
“Graciously agree to disagree with a KJV devotee’s preference for the TR and move on.” 
You be the judge. It seems then his book Authorized was written from a TR viewpoint to address only English translation, but whether he actually holds the viewpoint of TR Only or not is not clear.
I don’t want to cry wolf, but, well. The book seems like it is using the strategy outlined in the post.
Mark Ward states:
“KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue, like eating meat offered to idols. It makes void the Word of God by human tradition—one archaizing lexeme at a time (Mark 7:13). I pray that my brethren’s consciences will one day be liberated to read more than just the KJV.” 
Well, glad to know that he doesn’t put the issue at a preference camp, like many erroneously do. But, I hope I have shown that the Bible does address “archaizing lexemes” and why the continued use of the King James is Biblical, rather than human tradition.
So by now, you should understand why the book Authorized, while brings up a point and backs it with Bible, it is simply not the complete picture. The Bible does need to be understandable. But it is for our understanding on its terms, not ours, without compromising on its purity.
The King James balances many things. Readability is not the only thing. Purity is another. The separation from the secular world is another. Scientific-backed memorization is another. The call to study it as a workman is another. It is in a language we can read. To be imbalanced, to focus on one issue to the detriment of another important issue, results in many things.
Use the basics of the built-in dictionary. Find the first mention of a word in the Bible. Find all the other mentions. Read the contexts. Use Google or your Bible search software or website. Use contextual definitions. Your mind will be blown with the definitions and how everything in the Bible connects. The dictionary is probably the most important part of this article.
I’m writing a book that covers the above material in more detail, plus everything I said was beyond the scope of this article and more. It will be free for electronic distribution when it is finished. Sign up on the email list here  to get a copy when it is published.
The point of being KJVO is holding to the objective truth.
Authorized postulates we should make a new translation for modern English using the correct texts, and before that happens, to rely on modern English translations from the correct texts like the NKJV. This a TR Only position.
Authorized uses I Corinthians 14 and statements by translators and Tyndale as the impetus to embark on the translation, that the Bible should be read by the most common people.
The history of accepted and major translations is expounded upon, as to show when actual translations happen. It only happens when the trade language changes.
However, Biblically, the book fails to differentiate between tongues/dialects and languages.
The Bible also says it will also be a pure language, not only the most common language. The King James and other accepted translations have been of pure languages.
The book talks about "false friends", words that have changed in meaning, and Biblically, the way to address it is through teaching (another man interpreting) and studying (through the built-in dictionary of cross referencing).
Non-KJVO Baptists want to use the premise as a way to unite with KJVO Baptists. It won't, as both Biblically and historically, it is one pure language that unites.
Modern translations can be studied as long as you've exhausted the built-in dictionary and that the modern translations are not considered God's word, but a work of sinful man.
The KJV has been updated, hence the editions. But only as far as spelling, fonts/typeface, and printer error, not textual changes.
Some questionable statements from the author examined whether he actually holds the TR Only position or not.
Use the built-in dictionary!
Should the King James be updated? No. Let it be the authoritative text, the objective truth, the standard we raise.
I am well aware that I did not use scholarly accepted papers in my work. This was not meant to be a research paper or dissertation but a blog post. That's not to say there aren't any papers that say the details of what I've said, I can simply replace the sources with primary works eventually, but if you want primary sources and such, that will be in the book. It also underlies that scholars are often the first trusted source, yet, scholars are also human, and peer reviewers are also human.
No, the main drive of the article is simply, if Mark Ward uses a verse about tongues in saying that there should be a new translation, there are other verses why the King James method is the method. If you dismiss everything I've said only because I chose sources that support the non-crucial parts of the post but choose to ignore the deeper reasoning from the Bible, that's your deal. If you truly believe I the Bible and out of context Corinthians 14, you must also believe out of context Zephaniah and seek which Bible has a pure language. If you don't, you simply then only want to confirm your anti-KJVO bias by finding only sources that agree with you, not the Bible. Be consistent.
I am also well aware of the English translations before the King James. I'm also aware of the Aramaic in the prophetic books, I literally list a source that says that. Things like that simply are not part of the point here, and a deeper look at them proves what I say. If you aren't paying attention, I literally say "The fact of the matter is, there are many major and accepted translations before the King James, and in fact, a deeper study why the King James is the final iteration of God’s Word is reliant on it having many predecessors, but that is beyond the scope of the work.". Simply, if you have not noticed the phrase oft-repeated yet, BEYOND THE SCOPE of this article and will be found in the book.
As for whether I'm on the "losing side of history", the King James remains the most read, most sold (publishing lists sales numbers do not include public domain sales), and most used online Bible, and growing based on many surveys by non-KJVO entities such as USA Today and Christianity Today (which I also cover in the book). If I'm rationalizing, my rationale, again, is based on what the Bible says, and Mark Ward does the same.
 HOW KJV-ONLY CHRISTIANS RESPONDED TO AUTHORIZED: THE USE AND MISUSE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE (https://blog.lexhampress.com/2018/08/14/how-kjv-only-christians-responded-to-authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible/)
 3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers
 List of countries by English-speaking population (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population)
 Peshitta SYRIAC BIBLE
 Statenvertaling (https://www.statenvertaling.net/over/english.html)
 The Spanish Fountain: A History and Review of the Reina-Valera Version
 Author’s Apology (https://www.tyndalesploughboy.org/about/authors-apology/)
 The Translators to the Reader (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html)
 Biblical English by Dr. Phil Stringer
 Note: It seems that the main website for the UKJV has been taken down or seemingly only accessible by mobile. So two links are provided. (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/updated-kjv-bible/9nblggh09qr0) (https://www.oocities.org/updatedkjv/)
 Science Shows Something Surprising About What Reading Poetry Does to Your Brain (https://www.mic.com/articles/103490/why-we-should-all-be-reading-more-poetry)
 "Koine is regarded as a separate historical stage on its own, although in its earliest form it closely resembled Attic Greek and in its latest form it approaches Medieval Greek. Prior to the Koine period, Greek of the classic and earlier periods included several regional dialects." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek)
 What is the difference between the Biblical Greek, Ancient Greek, and Koine Greek? (https://qr.ae/TepiD6)
 Aramaic: The Bible’s third language
 Does the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the KJV have any errors?
 Definition of exact verb from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/exact_2)
 KJV'S BUILT-IN DICTIONARY HELPS PRISONER JUMP-START HIS EDUCATION
 ARE WE READY? A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO LOVE THE KJV
 “Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, and DL Moody all used a King James Bible and were used of God in a great way.” (https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/19953-did-d-l-moody-use-a-king-james-bible/)
 “One version of the Bible dominated the English speaking world during this period and on into the early part of the 20th century – the King James version.” (http://www.becomingcloser.org/History/the_great_awakening.html)
 HISTORY PROVES THE POWER OF THE KJV
 The Message (Bible) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible))
 Statement to all King James Bible (KJB) supporters concerning the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE)
 Book Sign Up (http://baptistmemes.weebly.com/book.html)