The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

[John of Japan]

It is my judgment that the KJV Only movement is fractured and discredited (as a movement, not speaking of individual IFB churches). As evidence, note that the Dean Burgon Society is fractured. They found out that Riplinger had been divorced twice, so they split with her, quit selling her stuff, and wrote books against her.

Again, this year Ruckman died. It remains to see what will happen to his little Bible institute and his publishing company, but I predict a downtrend due to the fact that there appears to be no heir apparent (unless you count Samuel Gipp).

One DBS faction started the William Carey Bible Society, which never supported any Bible translators to my knowledge. In a huge irony (judging by how they attacked me when I was a missionary to Japan for simply giving a bad Amazon review to the Williams book on translating), their website has been taken over by a Japanese company in the "water trade" (immoral activities, run by Yakuza gangsters), with articles about how to handle security in the "water trade."

 

[McCree79]

It is my judgment that the KJV Only movement is fractured and discredited (as a movement, not speaking of individual IFB churches). As evidence, note that the Dean Burgon Society is fractured. They found out that Riplinger had been divorced twice, so they split with her, quit selling her stuff, and wrote books against her.

Again, this year Ruckman died. It remains to see what will happen to his little Bible institute and his publishing company, but I predict a downtrend due to the fact that there appears to be no heir apparent (unless you count Samuel Gipp).

One DBS faction started the William Carey Bible Society, which never supported any Bible translators to my knowledge. In a huge irony (judging by how they attacked me when I was a missionary to Japan for simply giving a bad Amazon review to the Williams book on translating), their website has been taken over by a Japanese company in the "water trade" (immoral activities, run by Yakuza gangsters), with articles about how to handle security in the "water trade."

Sam Gipp does indeed have a following. He has produced some "high quality" videos(visual appearance, not content). I think he will be, if not already, the authoritative voice in the movement.

The those of the more "cultic" mindset, will probably flock to Steve Anderson [emoji19]

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Sam Gipp does indeed have a following. He has produced some "high quality" videos(visual appearance, not content). I think he will be, if not already, the authoritative voice in the movement.

The problem is that he is already an old guy. His book on the "history" of the Bible (very little real history) is dated 1987, and he looks pretty old on his website.

Waite of the DBS is even older. So unless these guys have a bright young protege to hand things down to, their influence will die with them, in my "humble but correct opinion" (as my son likes to say).

The those of the more "cultic" mindset, will probably flock to Steve Anderson [emoji19]

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Heavens! What sane person would follow Anderson? He's completely fringe, with a tiny church, and possibly mentally unbalanced.

 

[TCassidy]

Don't dismiss KJVOism too quickly. It seems to have 9 lives, like a cat.

Clear back 100 years ago KJVOism was mentioned in W. B. Riley's book, "The Menace of Modernism." What he said may be prophetic.

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience."

Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand.

100 years ago Dr. Riley believed the KJVO movement was on its deathbed. Yet, 100 years later, it is still here with us.

Never under estimate the longevity of ignorance!

 

[Van]

If the old bird dies, like a Phoenix, the new bird (KJVP) may rise from the ashes. We do not have to look far to find a plentiful supply of those willing to defend irrationality. The NKJV is a wonderful translation, but why didn't they go with the Byzantine text when dealing with the egregious errors in the TR?

 

[John of Japan]

Don't dismiss KJVOism too quickly. It seems to have 9 lives, like a cat.

Clear back 100 years ago KJVOism was mentioned in W. B. Riley's book, "The Menace of Modernism." What he said may be prophetic.

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience."

Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand.

100 years ago Dr. Riley believed the KJVO movement was on its deathbed. Yet, 100 years later, it is still here with us.

Never under estimate the longevity of ignorance!

I grant your point. However, unless I'm mistaken, Riley as just about the only source for this movement, meaning that it was pretty small. I'm sure the KJVO movement is permanent, but I think it's shrinking, and will continue to do so as other old men in the movement go on to their reward.

 

[TCassidy]

I think it's shrinking, and will continue to do so as other old men in the movement go on to their reward.

I certainly hope so!

 

[McCree79]

Somthing on the horizon that seems to be getting bigger is the "received text onlyism". Basically KJVO style arguments applied to the TR usualy....or what ever divine manuscript(s) that they deem the inerrant, perfect copy of the word of God. Becoming popular in some reformed circles.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

The flu keeps coming back as well.

 

[John of Japan]

Somthing on the horizon that seems to be getting bigger is the "received text onlyism". Basically KJVO style arguments applied to the TR usualy....or what ever divine manuscript(s) that they deem the inerrant, perfect copy of the word of God. Becoming popular in some reformed circles.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

This position can cause problems, but at least they are going back to the original languages, which to me is much better than Ruckmanism or Riplingerism.

 

[TCassidy]

Somthing on the horizon that seems to be getting bigger is the "received text onlyism". Basically KJVO style arguments applied to the TR usualy....or what ever divine manuscript(s) that they deem the inerrant, perfect copy of the word of God. Becoming popular in some reformed circles.

If the issue is TROnly, I would have to ask, "Which TR? There are around 33 of them, all different."

Add to that the "TR" most of the TROnly people claim is vested with so-called "Verbal plenary preservation," and is the only valid TR, have chosen a TR that did not exist until very late in the 19th century, which begs the question, "Where was the word of God prior to Scrivener's TR?"

Just to clarify, I am Byantine Preferred in that I believe the textual evidence supports the Byzantine textform being most likely to represent the autographs for reasons too lengthy to expound here. But that does not mean I dismiss the Alexandrian textform. After all, it agrees with the Byzantine textform around 95% of the time. And very few of the variants make any significant difference.

How this affects my daily life is minimally. My daily bible reading is in the NKJV. My study is generally in the WEB. Both of those are Byzantine based New Testaments.

But the church I attend uses the ESV, and I have no problem at all following along and reading the ESV text from the overhead screens.

(I do admit the ESV makes me a little nervous in that it was edited from the old RSV of 1948/1952, done by modernists, and even not-very-conservative evangelicals called it "The version we all love to hate." But I manage to overcome my bias and follow along as it is preached.)

 

[Rippon]

Somthing on the horizon that seems to be getting bigger is the "received text onlyism". Basically KJVO style arguments applied to the TR usualy....or what ever divine manuscript(s) that they deem the inerrant, perfect copy of the word of God. Becoming popular in some reformed circles.

James White has aptly debunked that error-filled belief held among about 1% of the Reformed persuasion. Robert Truelove is their main advocate --not a very convincing guy.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The problem is that he is already an old guy. His book on the "history" of the Bible (very little real history) is dated 1987, and he looks pretty old on his website.

Waite of the DBS is even older. So unless these guys have a bright young protege to hand things down to, their influence will die with them, in my "humble but correct opinion" (as my son likes to say).

Heavens! What sane person would follow Anderson? He's completely fringe, with a tiny church, and possibly mentally unbalanced.

There's no possibly to Anderson. He is mentally unbalanced.

I stand corrected. There's nothing wrong with that pic.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Personally,.I would like some men of the basor sort take the KJV and make it die the death.

Not that I think its invalid any more, but 1) no one speaks 17th Elizabethan english(unless in a Shakespeare play), and if they do in everyday life, need committed. And 2) because of these loons who believe it to be inspired.

 

[McCree79]

James White has aptly debunked that error-filled belief held among about 1% of the Reformed persuasion. Robert Truelove is their main advocate --not a very convincing guy.

He is certainly one of the loudest voices. I agree White has destroyed their premise, but Robert doesn't see it and continues to "refute" White. The past year this position seems to be growing. Or maybe they have just got louder with their opinions.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

Personally,.I would like some men of the basor sort to take the KJV and make it die the death.

Not that I think its invalid any more, but 1) no one speaks 17th Elizabethan english(unless in a Shakespeare play), and if they do in everyday life, need committed. And 2) because of these loons who believe it to be inspired.

Your disdain not withstanding, the KJV is a very good translation. And much of the archaic language is there for a reason.

The various pronouns, Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, Ye, and You, were brought forward from Late Middle English to preserve the number (singular or plural) and case (Subject, Object, Possessive, Predicate Nominative) of the pronouns which no longer exists in Modern English having been replaced by a generic "you" or "your."

The rule of thumb is that if it starts with a "y" it is plural and with a "th" it is singular.

The same is true of the "est" "eth" (or "st" and "th") endings.

They were also carried over from Late Middle English to indicate the person of the word.

Have. Hast. Hath. The common spelling is first person, the second person has the "s" in it (remember, "s" means "second" person), and the third person has the "t" (remember, "t" means "third" person).

As the Greek has different words to indicate the above it was thought by the KJV translators that information was important to bring into English. Today, if number is not obvious from the context, it is necessary to check the Greek to determine the number of those pronouns.

For instance: WEB 1 Corinthians 6:19 Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.

KJV 1Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye (plural) not that your (plural) body (singular) is the temple (singular) of the Holy Ghost which is in you (plural), which ye have of God, and ye (plural) are not your own?

Inclusive language or something else? And without the KJV a non Greek reader would not know.

 

[John of Japan]

If the issue is TROnly, I would have to ask, "Which TR? There are around 33 of them, all different."

Well, that's okay, we have the original mss of the TR...don't we?

Add to that the "TR" most of the TROnly people claim is vested with so-called "Verbal plenary preservation," and is the only valid TR, have chosen a TR that did not exist until very late in the 19th century, which begs the question, "Where was the word of God prior to Scrivener's TR?"

I'm continually amazed that Waite with his education buys into this stuff.

Just to clarify, I am Byantine Preferred in that I believe the textual evidence supports the Byzantine textform being most likely to represent the autographs for reasons too lengthy to expound here. But that does not mean I dismiss the Alexandrian textform. After all, it agrees with the Byzantine textform around 95% of the time. And very few of the variants make any significant difference.

We are agreed in our position.

How this affects my daily life is minimally. My daily bible reading is in the NKJV. My study is generally in the WEB. Both of those are Byzantine based New Testaments.

But the church I attend uses the ESV, and I have no problem at all following along and reading the ESV text from the overhead screens.

I hear you. I read the ESV when it first came out and our son sent us copies, but it was too close to the NASB to me. However, when I was in FL recently, the guy I stayed with gave me a "Literary Study Bible ESV," so I'm going to have to read that. It has an interesting glossary. Apparently the editors, the Rykens, felt there are "horror stories" in the Bible!

(I do admit the ESV makes we a little nervous in that it was edited from the old RSV of 1948/1952, done by modernists, and even not-very-conservative evangelicals called it "The version we all love to hate." But I manage to overcome my bias and follow along as it is preached.)

I hear you.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Your disdain not withstanding, the KJV is a very good translation. And much of the archaic language is there for a reason.

The various pronouns, Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, Ye, and You, were brought forward from Late Middle English to preserve the number (singular or plural) and case (Subject, Object, Possessive, Predicate Nominative) of the pronouns which no longer exists in Modern English having been replaced by a generic "you" or "your."

The rule of thumb is that if it starts with a "y" it is plural and with a "th" it is singular.

The same is true of the "est" "eth" (or "st" and "th") endings.

They were also carried over from Late Middle English to indicate the person of the word.

Have. Hast. Hath. The common spelling is first person, the second person has the "s" in it (remember, "s" means "second" person), and the third person has the "t" (remember, "t" means "third" person).

As the Greek has different words to indicate the above it was thought by the KJV translators that information was important to bring into English. Today, if number is not obvious from the context, it is necessary to check the Greek to determine the number of those pronouns.

For instance: WEB 1 Corinthians 6:19 Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.

KJV 1Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye (plural) not that your (plural) body (singular) is the temple (singular) of the Holy Ghost which is in you (plural), which ye have of God, and ye (plural) are not your own?

Inclusive language or something else? And without the KJV a non Greek reader would not know.

My distain in not towards the KJV, per se, but the KJVO movement. I once was in their ranks and now see the gross errors of my thinking at that time.

 

[John of Japan]

Personally,.I would like some men of the basor sort take the KJV and make it die the death.

Not that I think its invalid any more, but 1) no one speaks 17th Elizabethan english(unless in a Shakespeare play), and if they do in everyday life, need committed. And 2) because of these loons who believe it to be inspired.

I speak Elizabethan English occasionally--for the entertainment of family and friends. It's really not hard. And the KJV has such beautiful literary style that it's not going away any time soon. I read it daily and still love it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I was at MBU in the Burgeon Society's salad days. I got the sense that men like Waite, Hollowood, Cedarholm, and Fuller were ticked that their position was being slighted by Custer and BJU. Nothing like a scholar scorned to start a kerfluffle.