Featured Does KJVO equal Fundamental?

I am a fundamental independent Baptist Bible believer, and I am not KJV-only.

 

A clear indication that fundamental Baptists have lost their distinctions.

 

For decades KJVOism was unknown amongst fundamentalists. It was a non-issue. Almost 20 years ago a noted fundamentalist sat at my kitchen table and wept over the division he saw coming over this issue.

I too am a fundamental independent Baptist and am not KJVO.

 

How many different English versions were there before the English landed in America? How many English version did the scholars at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cambridge, Westminster et al have to debate over? Does it really make sense to claim that the KJV debate was a non issue in early fundamentalism when they didn't have the plethora of Bible translations we have today? So naturally the debate back then would have been about Bibles translated from the TR or the texts of W&H. How many of the English churches accepted the Douay Rheims? How many Protestants and Baptists accepted the RV or ASV? Not too many and how many other churches were promoting newer translations against the KJV back in 1880? 1890? 1900?

So to say that the KJVO wasn't a debate is pretty non sequitur. There wasn't a debate AGAINST the KJV either so that argument works both ways.

 

Division is not always a bad thing...

Sometimes division, as unpleasant as it can be, is not always a bad or evil thing. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary. There will always be division over this issue. I will say that most of the staunch fundamental Believers that I know or know of do take a pro-KJV stance. I will also make a bold statement that is MY OPINION....which only time will tell the truth of. That is this....I seriously DOUBT that there will be many...or maybe even ANY KJVO Believers that will be involved in or deluded/deceived into being a part of the coming "one-world "church" of the end-times. People that believe they hold the absolute and perfect Word of God in their hands will NOT be welcomed by that bunch. I think as a general rule, those who embrace the KJVO position also embrace the orthodox Fundamentals of that which we call "Biblical Christianity".

That said...I do NOT believe that one has to take a KJVO stance to be saved OR to be otherwise known as a Christian "Fundamentalist". That is my opinion on the subject.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Greg] I am very strongly pro-KJV, but am not KJVO.

[James] Could you possibly list a few IFB preachers, churches, or schools that took a KJVO position before about 1970?

As to the poll question I would contend that the strictest KJVO views are not consistent with the IFB ethos. They demand that their brothers in Christ accept what is essentially an abiblical position. The Bible never addresses translations. Thereby they deny their brethren individual soul liberty.

 

Sure if you will list those who took an ANTI KJV stance before 1970. I'll just start with one, the obvious one..Ruckman (and I DO have an entire list of KJVO preachers before 1970). In fact, a researcher that despises Ruckman wrote an entire thesis just to prove that the KJVO did not originate with Ruckman.

I would also say that 2 Cor 2:17, 2 Cor 4:2, Deut 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 would apply to translations since there are those that have deliberately corrupted the word of God through the translation process

 

Problem is that folks just aren't anti-KJV except for a very small number of extremists.

I would love to see your list with documentation.

Your passages deal with assumption that anything that is not your translation of choice is corrupt. That is eisegesis. You can't start with our point of view and make scripture fit it.

 

Some of the posts in other threads equate folks who like the KJV as the same as KJVO. Nothing could be further from the truth. I use the KJV and NKJV to follow Scripture readings in church. Sometimes I use other versions like the NIV to study at home.

It seems like adding the O to KJV gives others the feeling they have the right to impose their views on others. It seems to me that instead of having grudge that others use another version, a fellow Christian would rejoice at the fact that the Word of God is being read and studied.

 

KJVO was a teeny weeny matter in the IFB realm until the 70's as C4K has said. Most IFB Bible colleges and seminaries were KJVP until a few fell under the influence of Hyles and the post-Dr. John R. Rice Sword of the Lord and changed their stance.

I remember my pastor at the small IFB in Mims, FL would often quote other versions in his sermons and he even <gasp!> corrected the KJV when it was in error.

(Edit- after reading C4K's post following I should have said "KJVO was a teeny weeny matter in the IFB realm until well past the 70's.)

 

I still have the KJV I used at TTU in the mid-70s (ouch). There are a plethora of my marginal notes where teachers or chapel speakers gave alternate translation. IMNSHO it was not until Dr Hyles turned KJVO that the idea took off in parts of IFB. I never really became aware of the concept until the early 90s even though the church I was in is a bastion of fundamentalism in North Alabama.

 

BJU was not KJVO. TTU (where I went) was not KJVO. Dr. Roberson stood in chapel and "commanded" it would not be an issue.

You can't get more Fundamentalist or more different than BJU and TTU.

 

And is this your commandment as well in your own church? Also I din not know that Tennessee Tech was a religious school.

 

I know Reformed believers that are KJVO and they are not fundamentalists.

 

I believe he meant Tennessee Temple University.

 

KJV defender D. A. Waite listed the KJV as being number 17 on his chronological list of complete English Bibles (Defending the KJB, p. 203).

KJV defender David Norris claimed: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333).

David Daniell asserted: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126).

Some examples may include the following: Tyndale's New Testament, Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible, Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Lawrence Tompson's New Testament (1576), and KJV.

In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with many changes and revisions in them. The 1539 edition of the Great Bible is different from the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. The 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible is different from the 1569 edition and the 1572 edition.

 

I don't know, but it may be more than you assume. If I recall correctly, fundamentalist R. A. Torrey accepted or recommended the 1901 ASV. There were other Protestants and Baptists who accepted and even praised the 1901 ASV.

There were also other English Bibles before 1881. There were even some reprintings of some of the pre-1611 English Bibles [some in the 1700's and some again in the 1800's].

John Wesley's English translation of the Bible that differs from the KJV in many places and that had a number of renderings that would later be found in the 1881 Revised Version is said to have been popular in America [perhaps mostly among Methodists]. Wesley's New Testament was first printed in 1755.

A 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and other believers was used by a number of believers in America. It was popular enough to go through several editions. An edition printed in 1847 had on its binding "Baptist Bible". It is known for its use of "immerse" rather than "baptize," but it had many other translational differences and corrections if compared to the KJV.

There was the 1866 American Bible Union Version. Some of its translators were Baptists.

There was the 1912 Improved Edition published by the American Baptist Publication Society, that may have took over some of the translating work done by the American Bible Union.

There was the 1885 English translation of John Nelson Darby that was likely used by a number of Plymouth Brethren.

 

Yes, TTU was used to refer to Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga.

I was also there in the 1970's.

 

I think you may have missed my point but actually proved it in the process. The question about previous English translations was not about how many KJV translations there were or how many English translations existed which were based on the TR, but how many OPPOSING English translations existed prior to the 1885 RV and the 1901 ASV. The response I gave C4K was in regard to why there was no debate as there is today over the KJV vs Modern Versions because there were no rivals. Almost every example you gave was an English translation based on the TR. The first notable controversy over Bible editions was over the Douay Rheims (William Fulke), and then Burgon's refutation of Westcott & Hort. These weren't the ONLY debates but the most popular.

Thus there were not, before the term 'independent Baptist' became popular, any significant debates against modern English versions because there simply were not that many, and they were not being promoted over the King James (ANY edition). Furthermore, the KJV was not considered archaic in the 18th century to the extent such argument is levied against the KJV today, and some of the English translations before the KJV were still in usage. Nobody in the 21 century would now recommend reading the 15-16 century English translations, but since the KJV did stay current with the English changes, the KJV is still more contemporary in this day than any English translations of the 1500s. Thus those who defended the TR or MT in the 1800s would not find it necessary to be King James Only because they still considered the 1500 English translations as worthy translations at least against the RV of Westcott & Hort. Of course, then you would argue "why don't KJVO onlyist then recommend the same arguments that could have been used by Burgon and endorse the other English translations as well instead of KJV only? that seems to be a contradiction of authorities on the matter". Again, who would NOW recommend reading the English of the 15 and 16th century? The fact the Burgon and others opposed the newer versions that were translated from the Siniaticus and Vaticanus should be enough regardless of whether they were "KJVO" or not.

So then why would any of the earlier Baptists have argued for KJV only when they were no rivals being promoted over the KJV? It became necessary when the Bible Societies started questioning the underlying of the KJV and promoting newer versions AGAINST the KJV which became a trait in the mainstream evangelical churches and no longer just a charge from the Catholics. The history of the textual debates shows clearly that the arguments revolved around Catholics vs Protestants and Baptists, and that is no longer the case. The modern church has now adopted the same arguments that the Catholics used against the Protestants and Baptists. Even recently, the Catholic church has now adopted YOUR arguments (Catholic Roots of the King James Bible ) and the fact that that doesn't raise eyebrows with anyone defending the modern versions and slamming the KJVO argument is bewildering.

Thus the argument that the early Baptists were not "KJVO" and such was not a major contention until @1970 is a very weak argument against the KJVO crowd.