-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Origin of the TERM King James Only
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
About the earliest I have found, used in the sense and way we normally use "King James Only" today, is in the late 1970s and early 80s. I found some newspapers advertisements in the 70s, in which, for example, fundamentalist churches advertised "we preach the King James Bible only."
I have seen a couple claims that KJV-only authors make about the origin of the term, but they do not seem to have done sound research concerning its origin.
David Cloud claimed: “The term ‘King James Only’ was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 7; Answering the Myths, p. 5). Lloyd Streeter maintained that the term KJV-only “arose later [after 1967] as a term of derision” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 18). Phil Stringer asserted: “I don’t like the term ‘King James Only.’ It is a name given to us by our critics” and yet he himself chose to “use the term so that it is clear who I am talking about” (Unbroken Bible, p. 9).
Neither David Cloud nor Phil Stringer provided any sound, documented evidence to prove their claims about who invented the term to be true.
According to your observation, it may have been KJV-only advocates themselves that in effect used the term to describe their own position.
Herb Evans referred to “the King James only position” in 1980 (Flaming Torch, June, 1980, p. 3). Herb Evans' articles were usually printed earlier in Peter Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin.
The more important matter would not be who first used the term, but whether the term is as an accurate one for describing overall a certain view or position. This term has value or worth in its ability to communicate meaning concerning a certain view so that even KJV-only author Phil Stringer choose to use it to be clear in regard to which group or groups that he was referring. Phil Stringer would use this term to identify those whom he described as “fundamentalist, King James Only Baptists” (Unbroken Bible, p. 57).
I have read vague statements, but not seen any specific supporting evidence.
I am open to either possibility, and looking to see if there is any proof supporting whether the terminology was first pejoratively used by its opponents, or early embraced by those advancing the King James cause.
Thanks. This one appears to be used as a term to describe one's belief of the Bible, and more advanced in that regard than churches using similar wording to advertise in the newspaper what their churches are like (though the advertisement might be a clue that such churches could have also used the terminology otherwise.
It is quite possible to research the original use of the term, as well as the accuracy of the term. The two pursuits are not mutually exclusive. Further, I think finding the first uses of the term could shed some light on the evolution of the term into what it stands for today (e.g. White, The Kings James Only Controversy, pp. 23-28).
IMO, the term is too broad when something like, "I like the King James Version the best" is the primary factor tying in name one who might see the KJV as a pinnacle literary production to those who hold the double inspiration and advanced revelation of Peter Ruckman. Is the term really all that clear?
Along this line, I also wonder whether James White is the person who created the KJVO spectrum -- that is, the categories he uses in The Kings James Only Controversy, pp. 23-28. I have never looked into that before, either.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure of its origin either.
The first time I ever heard or read of the term was sometime in the late 1990's, and it was from the opposing position.
I suspect you may be on to something, but I've never really looked into it deeply.
But I do recognize that most who use it ( especially nowadays ), do so in a derogatory manner.
What is the context and significance of the 1967 date used here? Thanks.
We do not use the term to put down, its just that the term is now associated with pretty much what those holding to the KJVO advocate!
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I think there's a lot of confusion with the term,
and I've seen many on just this forum that appear to lump everyone who advocates the TR and KJV over the CT and the newer English translations as all being in the same mindset and using the same rhetoric...
I assure you sir, that my attitude towards those that oppose my position is one of respectful disagreement and not one of superiority;
But I've seen far too many on both sides that can't ( or won't ) "put the brakes on" with respect to their conduct.
@rlvaughn :
I suspect that if I were to go digging for answers,
I'd probably find that the term originated in a much similar fashion as the terms "Arminianism" and "Calvinism"...
in that, some use it to denigrate their opponents and as an epithet or almost a curse-word, while others find it to be a convenient "catch-all" term to describe someone's beliefs without getting into too many details.
I wish you success in your search.
I understand. It is used in many different ways, by both opponents and proponents of the view. I am interested in determining how it first got started.
Yes. I think the term breeds confusion, when it has such a range of meaning (or supposed meaning). I think it is sincerely used most of the time just as a descriptor, but that it also has polemic value that some exploit.
Thanks. If you ever run across anything, please let me know.
What did you think of the 1611 web site view on the KJVO link?
Well, I think it has some legitimacy, in the sense that King James and others did want to unite the country around one Bible. However, "King James Only" wasn't terminology anyone used to describe that idea in that day. "Authorised Version" is the preferred English terminology for this Bible, while "King James" is more American.
Re the last sentence, "AVolatry" is a term I have found recently, possibly coined by David Norton. If so, best I can tell is that his main intent may have been to describe a literary view of the KJV rather than a religious one.
I do not think that is any confusion with the term when it is clearly defined and explained.
I find some KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite and David Cloud seem to try to create confusion about the term because they do not seem to want their view accurately and clearly defined as being a form of KJV-only view. Some seem to try to be KJV-only and not KJV-only at the same time as they deny being KJV-only, but yet they make exclusive only claims for only one English translation.
I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English translations made from it. My 2003 book was written on the basis of the Textus Receptus, the pre-1611 English Bibles, and the KJV, and yet it is clear that I am not part of the KJV-only mindset. Because I accept the truth that the NKJV belong in the same stream or line of Bible translations with the Geneva Bible and the KJV, KJV-only advocates still try to lump me with those who advocate the Critical Text.
Which specific people who do not hold a form of KJV-only view have been lumped together with KJV-only?
I remember hearing the term in about 1974-5? Maybe a little sooner?
He actually defended KJVO
Made some kind if crazy analogy like Authorized Version meant KJVO then giggled. He did not understand what he was talking about IMO
He actually defended KJVO
Made some kind if crazy analogy like Authorized Version meant KJVO then giggled. He did not understand what he was talking about IMO
In his 2001 book, Lloyd L. Streeter does not explain why he chose the date of 1967. He claimed that "in 1967 no one used the term 'King James Only'", but he does not say why he picked that date.
Perhaps he did indicate why he chose that date since he indicated a preacher in California turned him on to a book that he read that year. Lloyd Streeter evidently read some KJV-only book in 1967.
Lloyd Streeter claimed that "the alternative to being 'King James only' is to be 'Critical Text only'" (p. 19). Since those are not the only two choices, he seems to use the fallacy of false dilemma in making that assertion.
Last edited:
I do not think that the term KJV-only breeds confusion anymore than the term Baptist breeds confusion.
There are differences in doctrine in different groups of Baptists, and yet the term Baptist is correctly and accurately used for those different groups of Baptists with some different in doctrine. The same is true with the different groups or camps of KJV-only. Because they may use different arguments for their KJV-only claims does not mean that one group is KJV-only and the other group is not KJV-only. Varying groups that make exclusive only claims for the KJV are still correctly identified as being KJV-only regardless of any differences between those groups just as groups of Baptists with some differences in doctrine are still correctly identified as being Baptist. Because there may be different KJV-only camps does not mean that the term KJV-only has a range of meaning since it could still be accurately used to identify those who make exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation..
The name Baptist has a much longer standing than KJV-Only and a clearer core meaning that unites the various groups -- and yet we still add modifiers and double-modifiers to distinguish between various camps of Baptists -- Independent Fundametal, Southern, Missionary, Reformed, Regular, Old Regular, Primitive, Free Will, and so on -- in order to be clear. Perhaps KJVO could use some better and more distinguishable modifiers. To be sure, some of the problem is the loose way that people use the term, and perhaps they don't understand the significance -- and the differences. It doesn't take much looking on BB to find folks who talk about all variations of KJVO as if it is is one unified camp without differences.
Last edited:
That may be true today or in the 1900's, but it may not have been the terminology for it in the 1600's or 1700's.
I have read some historical sources that suggest that the KJV was called "King James' translation" or a similar name before it was called the authorized version.
A 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible had the caption--"Authorized and appointed to be read in churches," but the 1611 KJV did not have the word "authorized" on its title page. KJV-only author Peter Ruckman claimed: “For the term ‘authorized’ does not appear on the original edition of the 1611 Bible, and the term was never connected with King James” (Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 26).
Randall Davidson asserted: “The words ‘Appointed to be read in churches’ are absent from at least eight of the editions of the King James Version of the first few years, showing that the printer sometimes, but by no means invariably, added the words to the title-page of this version” (Protestant Episcopal Review, Vol. 6, p. 179). There are more than eight editions that omit those words. Some title pages of KJV editions printed by the king’s printers in London that do not have the words “Appointed to be read in churches” include ones in 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1627. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule maintained that “the words Appointed . . . are regularly omitted from both titles in the early octavo editions, down to 1630” (Historical Catalogue, p. 137). Darlow and Moule noted that “the line Appointed . . . is omitted from both titles” in the first small folio edition in 1616 (p. 148).
If the king’s printer had been authorized and directly instructed by the bishop of London, the archbishop, the Privy Council, or the King to include these words on the title page in 1611, it would be very unlikely that he would have dared to omit them in any of the editions that he printed. The fact that those words were omitted in several early editions indicates that the printer himself likely added those words without any specific authorization, perhaps taking or borrowing them from the title page of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, since he knew that the KJV was intended to replace the Bishops‘. If the printer received any special authorization or order from the Privy Council or the King, why did he deliberately omit the word “authorized” found on that 1602 title page of the Bishops‘ Bible? Alfred Pollard asserted: “There is indeed negative evidence that there was no such order, for the word ‘Appointed,‘ is considerably weaker than the “Authorized and Appointed’ which it replaced” (Records, p. 60). In addition, since these words had been put on the title page of the Bishops’ Bible without any known royal authority, it should be obvious that the same could be true concerning the 1611 title page.
Your post suggests that you may have spent some time debating some folks who think the term "Authorized" is important to defending the "King James Only" position. Otherwise, I am not sure how to understand your reply. That issue "makes me no nevermind." It can be an interesting historical inquiry, but makes no difference to me as being important in the versions debate. Apparently it does to some people.
To clarify what I meant, in the context of the OP and Yeshua1's directing me to a particular link:
In my experience, the English seem to prefer the name "Authorised Version," while Americans seem to prefer the name "King James." I don't doubt some people called it "King James's Bible" or something like that in the 1600s and 1700s. However, I don't think "King James Only" was terminology anyone used to describe a view of that translation in any of that period of time. Furthermore, while the origin of the term will be whatever it is, I do not expect to find that the terminology "King James Only" originated across the pond, but right here in the old U.S. of A.
