As far as I know, I was the first one ever to use the term King James Only in a positive way, so I can repudiate those who have picked up on it and used it in a negative way, as well as those, like David Cloud, who use the term in a limited and safeguarded capacity to play it safe. I have annotated David Cloud’s comments (updated March 31, 2010) as follows: – Herb Evans

King James Onlies and David Cloud
Updated July 16, 2003 (first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143
David Cloud - 1. If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
Herb Evans - David Cloud does not know or have the Greek Texts that the KJB translators had nor does he know which ones that were used, if he had them? For whatever reason, the KJB translators did not use only Greek texts. It is pure nonsense to judge something you possess with something that you either do not possess or are not sure about whether it was used or not.

David Cloud - 2. If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not "King James Only."
Herb Evans - The only problem with this is that we do not possess a complete and perfect Hebrew or Greek text that God gave to holy men of old. But then the KJB, per Cloud’s latest comments, is not “given by inspiration.” David Cloud fails to tell us how all the incomplete and partial copies and less than perfect copies were "inspired." The other problem is that the AV translators did not always use the Hebrew and Greek text, so it is a misnomer to refer to their “underlying Greek and Hebrew text.”

David Cloud - 3. If "King James Only" defines one who believes we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not "King James Only."
Herb Evans - This is a straw man. Even Doctor Ruckman's school teaches both Hebrew and Greek. The teacher was Laurance Vance, and we suggest that Cloud and Vance have a Hebrew/Greek duel. King James Onlies do not learn these languages to correct the KJB. They learn them to keep Bible correctors from pulling snow jobs on the laity and they are cautious about their sources.

David Cloud - 4. If "King James Only" defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not "King James Only." -- David Cloud
Herb Evans: The King James Translators used the Older English translations and used primarily Tyndale, along with some other foreign language translations. Some of the Latin verses were translated into the KJB due to the absence of any Greek texts. Some Greek texts were found after the KJB translation (along with comments of the so called church fathers) that confirmed many such Latin verses. There is absolutely nothing wrong with translating from Latin, in the absence of Greek, providing that you have good Latin and good translators and have diligently compared it with other foreign language translations (the older ones, not the MV perversions).

David Cloud: 5. If "King James Only" defines one who believes that all modern English versions are merely New Age demonic trash that have no value whatsoever, even the most formal equivalency ones and even for comparison purposes, I am not "King James Only." -- David Cloud
Herb Evans - Most King James Onlies count all the modern perversions to be perversions. They do find some value in the versions that predate the KJB and faithfully use them to expose the modern versions. They do not find any value in the corrupt scholarship of any newer version, despite Cloud's "demonic trash" straw man to enhance his argument for them. We challenge David Cloud to cite the newer English versions that he thinks are not perversions.

David Cloud: 6. If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not "King James Only." -- David Cloud
Herb Evans - Most King James Onlies believe that folks can be saved through reading a commentary or a tract that has uncorrupted verses in them. Obviously, some folks are saved through chimney cornered, sermon quotes in salvation messages. Folks were saved through preaching before there was a New Testament. This is another one of Cloud's straw men.

David Cloud: 7. If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the King James Bible can never again be changed and updated, I am not "King James Only
Herb Evans - We had heard a rumor that Don Waite’s group is going to try. The question is not whether it "CAN" be changed, for it already has been changed in the corrupt New King James bible. The question is, "Should it be changed and for what reason? If Cloud does believe the KJB is "inspired" as he claims (but not given by inspiration). Does Cloud guarantee that it too will be inspired? Or will there then be TWO INSPIRED BIBLES? And will it have the same fate as the NKJB?

David Cloud: 8. If "King James Only" defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not "King James Only." -- David Cloud

Herb Evans - Herb Evans never called anyone a jackleg, silly ass, or moron for his peculiar view. But then, Cloud calls men like Herb Evans heretics for believing that the KJB was “given by inspiration.” After reading Cloud’s article and these comments and discovering his secret mental reservations and catching him trying to hang on to both sides of the KJB issue, please understand why we cannot be THAT KIND of KJB Only.

What Cloud said in August 2003

Herb Evans - David Cloud calls folks heretics for saying that the KJB “IS given by inspiration (noun, not a verb or adjective or adverb).” Does everyone understand, now? There was scripture that was once “given by inspiration” but is now only inspired. And there is scripture (KJB) that was not “given by inspiration” but IS inspired. The KJB product was not “given by inspiration” but the KJB product IS inspired. So, King James Onlies, if you do not believe it that way, then you are a heretic. This is the doctrine of trans-biblio-substantiation. The KJB was once not inspired (because it did not exist) until the translators translated it and said Hoc Est Biblios to achieve “inspired” status without being “given by inspiration.”

David Cloud from the February 25, 2009 Way of Life
I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

Herb Evans - But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith . . .

ALL scripture IS [NOT WAS] given by inspiration of God, and IS [NOT WAS] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, THROUGHLY furnished unto all good works. -- 2 Tim 3:14 – 17

Well, here we get down to the nitty gritty. Let’s examine David Cloud’s position a bit further. David Cloud’s position of the KJB is that it “IS NOT given by inspiration" but only that it “WAS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION” in the Original Hebrew and Greek, David Cloud’s sacred languages. Our question is, "Were the copies of copies of the Autographs inspired and infallible or were they “GIVEN BY INSPIRATION?” Moreover are the extant Hebrew and Greek copies inspired and infallible? If the answer is “YES,” which copies, in the differing Greek copies, were inspired and infallible? If the answer is “NO,” may we assume that there is nothing today extant that is “given by inspiration?” If we are to take David Cloud’s view of the scriptures, we would have to say, if only the inspired Autographs are the only entities “given by inspiration” and that the KJB is not so given, then how can the KJB be said to be the scriptures, because our text says that ALL scripture IS given by inspiration of God. The position that the scripture WAS GIVEN by inspiration is the old, outworn theory that “inspiration” means “original transmission.”

In other words, if the "Original Autographs" were xeroxed, the worse case scenario of such a theory would be that the Xeroxed copies were not “given by inspiration” but only “inspired.” The best case scenario would be that the first COPIES of the copies of the Autographs were not given by inspiration but were only inspired. Of course, Timothy had Hebrew copies, of the original Autographs, originally given by inspiration, but Paul called that which Timothy had the “HOLY” Scriptures.

So the next argument of David Cloud might be to run to the copies of the Greek for the New Testament and the Hebrew for the Old Testament. But then they could not be given by inspiration since they are only inspired. The only problem with all this is that we do not have any complete Greek manuscripts intact, and what we do have do not agree with one another. All the Greek we have is mostly bits and pieces and fragments, and they all disagree with one another.

The next argument that David Cloud might use in this regard is some Textus Receptus compilation. Well, there are several of those, and they disagree with one another as well. Besides, these several are collated, eclectic composites from about no less than 5 % of the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts extant by men who decided which manuscripts to use and which Greek of those selected manuscripts to include into their Receptus. So, why is it heresy to solely rely on God for the inspiration and preservation of the scripture? Must we trust the judgment of men, however good they are, in this matter, as we try to observe 2 Timothy 3:14 to be careful of where we learn things and of whom we learn them? What is the difference in the collated selection of Greek manuscripts for an eclectic Greek Receptus and the collated selection of manuscripts from Greek and other languages and other English Bibles to arrive at what the King James translators selected for their translation? The other thing that we must consider is that our text tells us that the scripture IS inspired:

“ALL SCRIPTURE IS [NOT WAS] GIVEN BY INSPIRATION . . . and IS [NOT WAS] PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be [NOT COULD ONCE BE] perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Now, if the KJB is not inspired, it is no longer PROFITABLE for those things; the man of God can no longer be THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works. If the adjective “inspired cannot be applied to the KJB, can the adjectives, HOLY, PURE, VERY PURE, TRUE from the beginning, and quick and powerful be ascribed to the KJB? If not, what Bible extant can these things be ascribed? Or is true that nothing extant is inspired or be ascribed any of those things? Is the KJB ALIVE?

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
Herb Evans - Cloud’s error here is claiming that there is an underlying Greek or Hebrew Text that the KJB was translated from. The KJB translators did not use one Hebrew or Greek text to translate. They used former English Bibles, (The KJB is 90 % Tyndale) as well as other foreign language Bibles such as Latin. It is uncertain as to which Greek the translators used in entirety if any. Since we do not possess the inspired “Original Autographs,” how can we ever prove, with an uninspired bible of any kind, that an inspired Bible ever existed?

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”
Herb Evans - Well, how about advanced illumination and advanced knowledge that shall be increased that former scholars have not yet found in the Hebrew and Greek or even the English??

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.”
Herb Evans - Well, if you can find a verse and chapter that instructs us to do so, we are game. But what if the Greek and Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries do not agree? I have a couple of the best and they are not always correct. Plus that, scholars, especially the liberal ones, are following Hebrew and Greek grammars that are very late in Christendom, based upon their consensus of that which the Hebrew and Greek are supposed to be.

David Cloud -- God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.
Herb Evans - But pray, tell, what is the right Hebrew and Greek? Says who? I say that a thorough knowledge of the English KJB would be more beneficial than any Greek or Hebrew studies. Nevertheless, your arch enemy, who taught at PBI in Pensacola teaches them and is the author of study books on them, namely, Larry Vance.

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali. There is a list of Received-text based translations in the “Directory of Foreign Language Literature” at the Way of Life web site. (See the Apostasy Database).
Herb Evans - Ah, what does this disclaimer “properly” mean in English? Who is the judge of that . . . David Cloud? The Masoretic Text, eh? Were the Masorete copies of the copies of the Hebrew “Original Autographs” inspired or infallible? It is difficult for us to imagine how they were, since both the liberals and conservatives alike tell us that the Masoretes added the vowel points to the Hebrew scripture between the 5th to the 12th centuries, depending on who you listen to on the matter. If that is true, the Masoretes Text bears no resemblence to the Autographs. In many instances, vowel pointed Hebrew words and non vowel pointed words change the meaning of such words significantly. Imagine English words as having only consonants, for example, “BT.” Does that mean boot, but, boat, beat, beet, bet, bat, bit, byte, bite, bait, abate, bout, or about, and etc.
Of course, much of the confusion could be avoided by observing the context of consonant only usage but not always, as even a Strong’s concordance will indicate that groups of several Hebrew words have the same consonants. Now, one might resolve the argument by saying that the "Original Autographs" originally contained the vowel points. Or is that, which we have recently found, the condensed Hebrew abbreviation of the originals from the Essenes, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Kabala or similar sources. Unfortunately, we do not have any such original evidence. The Masons do a similar thing with their encoded writings. They remove the vowels, and I challenge anyone but a Mason to interpret such books, since they have it committed to memory as do the modern day Jews.

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.” (I also believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)
Herb Evans - Well, let us just suppose that those who do translate or correct other languages Bibles, from the KJB, do know what they are doing, say for instance in the new Gomez Spanish Bible, which is an updated Valera Bible.

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.
Herb Evans - Who believes that straw man? Anyone you know?

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.”
Herb Evans - Evidently, you have never read Larry Vance’s book on archaic words in the King James Bible? I was a high school drop out and I understand them. Perhaps, you need to tell us as to what “antiquated language” to which you refer. Surely not the “thee’s” and “thou’s,” which are means of determining the singularity or the plurality of the word “you,” something that Americans have a problem with and Europeans do not.

David Cloud -- I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation.
Herb Evans - Well, in my estimation, 1769 was good enough to standardize English grammar and spelling and to get rid of the German S’s. Beyond that, I see no need, especially when England and America still spell differently.

David Cloud -- Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible.
Herb Evans - Well, too bad that you do not have the same sympathy for uneducated but saved laymen, who the only Greek that they know is a restaurant owner. Our missionary to Greece complained that the Greeks do not know what the Greek Bible says.

David Cloud -- At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology.
Herb Evans - What are the problems with the KJB? Perhaps, we can help you with them?

David Cloud -- If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not “King James Only.”
Herb Evans - If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those "heretics" who disagree with him on whether the KJB is “given by inspiration,” I am still a KJB only, but obviously you are either a counterfeit or someone who wants to straddle both sides of the fence. If you are not a coward to debate me on this, please post me.

David Cloud’s Final Response