In discussing “the basic issues involved in the King James Only debate,” John Ankerberg and John Weldon write:
“There are several distinct KJV groups which include: 1) people who prefer the KJV above all other Bibles but could not be classified as KJV only; 2) people who argue that the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior to all other texts. Thus group would not necessarily argue that such texts are inspired but that they more accurately reflect the original writings; 3) those who argue that onlythe Textus Receptus (TR) has been supernaturally preserved and inspired and is therefore inerrant. (The TR is the text on which the KJV is based; there are over 30 editions, none 100 percent identical.) For those who hold this view, the KJV translation itself would not necessarily be inspired; 4) the most dominant group are those who argue that the KJV translation itself constitutes an inspired and inerrant text. Categories 3 and 4 comprise the core of the controversy and are our principal concern.The Facts on the King James Only Debate, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ATRI Publishing, 2011.
Written later than the categorizations of James R. White, Ankerberg and Weldon choose to condense the categorizations to four rather than White’s five. Is this better or worse? Makes no difference?