Has the KJVO movement Hijacked the IFB

No version is the word of God. At best they are a translation. The KJVO's need to tak a look at the definition of the word version. It doesn't qualify as the real deal.

ver·sion (vûrÆzhÃn, -shÃn), n.
1. a particular account of some matter, as from one person or source, contrasted with some other account: two different versions of the accident.
2. a particular form or variant of something: a modern version of an antique.
3. a translation.
4. (often cap.) a translation of the Bible or a part of it.

 

Are you so sure about that? How about some documentation to support that? I would like to take a look at your source.

Do you also regularly listen to Ruckman too? Read the writing at http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/ruckmanism_or_wreckmanism.htm

“In 1959, he was divorced from his wife and subsequently married the wife of one of his students, a matter that has brought personal criticism from some Christian leaders.”

That KJVO married the wife of one of his students. My what a godly man!!!


The following is a good picture of KJVOism. It was retrieved today from http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC1101W4.htm

Many people have written us at The John Ankerberg Show asking if the claims of Texe Marrs concerning a 1995 television taping were true. Now it is necessary to set the record straight.

Unfortunately, a characteristic feature of much KJV Onlyism is that its zealous proponents are often unfair and biased in their use of facts. Yet they claim to be concerned about the truth.

Dr. Art Farstad, general editor of the New King James Version (NKJV), is hardly alone when he observed on the program, "I’ve been accused of a number of heinous crimes that I’ve never done."

God takes truth very seriously because He is a God of truth. He warns in Scripture against false witnesses and those who would lie against the truth: "A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies" (Proverbs 12:17). The Scripture also tells us that we are to avoid those who cause dissension: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions…. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ,…" (Romans 16:17-18).

In Flashpoint, the monthly newsletter of Texe Marrs ministry for October 1995, p. 3, we find an article titled, "SHOCKER!—BIBLE SCHOLAR LOSES VOICE ON THE JOHN ANKERBERG TV SHOW."

This article typifies the distortion that characterizes the arguments and approach of the KJVO camp toward those whom it considers its opponents. Texe Marrs wrote that Dr. Don Wilkins had lost his voice during the taping of the Ankerberg program on the issue of new Bible translations. He begins the article by saying, "You can call it pure justice, a sign from God, or whatever you want, but eyebrows were sure raised recently during the tapings for Christian TV’s The John Ankerberg Show."

Then he begins a series of distortions. First, he alleges that John Ankerberg attempted to "stack the deck" by having "five new version scholars but only three King James advocates." But there was no attempt to "stack the deck." Six KJVO advocates were invited; only three chose to appear. Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman and D. A. Waite, all leaders in the KJVO camp, declined our invitation.

Second, Marrs calls Ankerberg "a bitter opponent of the King James Bible," but this is also false. If it were true, why would John offer the King James version as a premium on his TV shows? Why would he also offer quality study aids for the KJV?

Third, Marrs claims on one of the shows that Don Wilkins lost his voice, presumably as a punishment from God:

'[It] happened when Ankerberg asked Dr. Don Wilkins, head of the New King James Version translation committee a key question. "Is it true," asked Ankerberg, "as Gail Riplinger reported in her best-selling book, New Age Bible Versions, that a number of the scholars that worked on the new translation committees lost their voice as punishment by God?"'

'As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth to answer—and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear his throat, but he couldn’t respond. Ankerberg and the other new version scholars were visibly startled. Finally an embarrassed and frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost inaudible manner, "I...I’ve...lost...my voice!"'

"A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James Only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here," Chambers insisted. But Ankerberg was hearing none of it. After a brief delay, the TV cameras began to roll again, after the amazing segment of Dr. Wilkin’s losing his voice had conveniently been excised!""

This reporting is one long misrepresentation. First, Dr. Don Wilkins was on the translation committee of the New American Standard Bible, not the New King James Version, as Marrs stated.

Second, in previous shows Ankerberg had commented about Riplinger’s claim that new translations editors had lost their voices. He wanted an answer on this to quell the rumor and set the record straight since, obviously, none of the people present had lost their voices and neither did they know of this occurring to anyone else. But on the segment reported by Marrs, this was not Ankerberg’s question. Ankerberg’s question was to ask Wilkins about the credibility of Riplinger’s book. So Marrs has distorted the context as well.

Third, the event in question was not at all like Marrs reported it. I (John Weldon) personally reviewed this segment of the tape where Wilkins supposedly lost his voice. He didn’t lose his voice at all; he merely developed a "frog" in his throat, which took about five seconds to cough out. This happens to people all the time and is hardly a sign of God’s judgment, nor would it be unexpected with someone who had just flown in from Athens, Greece, and was tired. In response, Wilkins simply cleared his throat and said, a bit embarrassed, but half in jest, "I’m losing my voice." Everyone laughed and he took a drink of water and then proceeded to answer Ankerberg’s question concerning the unreliability of Riplinger’s book. He went on immediately to state that the Lockman Foundation had spent six weeks in investigation of Riplinger’s book and that "what I personally found is that virtually everything she says is wrong, or a misquotation or a deliberate deception of people…."

So Wilkins did not lose his voice, Ankerberg and the new version scholars were not "visibly startled," or "shocked," Wilkins was not "embarrassed and frightened," etc.

If this really had been a punishment of God, as was the biblical case of Zechariah, Wilkins would not have been able to continue speaking at all. In the case of Zechariah, the angel pronounced a judgment that he would be unable to speak for a full nine months because he had not believed the angel’s words concerning the miraculous birth of John the Baptist: "And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their proper time" (Luke 1:20). Zechariah was indeed mute for an entire nine months (Luke 1:24, 57, 64). So, why did God allow Dr. Wilkins to continue speaking and mention that the Lockman Foundation had investigated Riplinger’s book and found it was completely false as to its claims? As James White, a participant in the debate, pointed out in, "The View from Marrs,"

"Dr. Wilkins had one single problem; he immediately recovered and went on to demonstrate errors in KJV Only viewpoints. Dr. Wallace had flown in just an hour before the program began, yet he had no problems. I had no problems, Dr. Barker had no problems, and Dr. Farstad had no problems, either. Can’t we use the term "desperation" to describe the KJV Only attempt to read into this incident some divine judgment? Why didn’t God keep us all from discussing Riplinger’s errors? Why did Dr. Wilkins’ problem last for just a few seconds? And why did God allow us to repeatedly refute the KJV Only arguments through all eight programs?"1

The John Ankerberg Show does its very best to produce quality Christian apologetics that attempt to defend the truth of the Christian faith and offer a biblical and reasoned evaluation of current issues. Unfortunately, the church of past and present has usually been less than excited about supporting apologetic ministries, cult evangelism, etc. Those like Dr. Ankerberg who suffer the personal and ministerial consequences of seeking to defend the truth should be commended rather than being unfairly criticized.

(Note: The cameras were not "turned off and backed up," but continued to roll. Anyone wishing to view the actual raw footage for themselves can call our office to request a copy. You will be charged a small fee to cover our costs. 1-800-805-3030)

FOOTNOTES

1. James White, "The View from Marrs," fax to John Weldon dated October 16, 1995. We would like to thank James White for the title of our article.

[ October 24, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

Just a little more exposure about some those claim to speak for God:

Retrieved from http://www.ankerberg.com/ankerberg-articles/wilkins.html

Did Dr. Don Wilkins Really Lose His Voice on a Recent Taping of The John Ankerberg Show on the New Translations?

Many people have written us at The John Ankerberg Show asking if the claims of Texe Marrs concerning a recent television taping were true. Now it is necessary to set the record straight.

Unfortunately, a characteristic feature of much KJV Onlyism is that its zealous proponents are often unfair and biased in their use of facts. Yet they claim to be concerned about the truth.

Dr. Art Farstad, general editor of the New King James Version (NKJV), is hardly alone when he observed on the program, "I’ve been accused of a number of heinous crimes that I’ve never done."

God takes truth very seriously because He is a God of truth. He warns in Scripture against false witnesses and those who would lie against the truth: "A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies" (Proverbs 12:17). The Scripture also tells us that we are to avoid those who cause dissension: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions…. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ,…" (Romans 16:17-18).

In Flashpoint, the monthly newsletter of Texe Marrs ministry for October 1995, p. 3, we find an article titled,

"SHOCKER!—BIBLE SCHOLAR LOSES VOICE ON THE JOHN ANKERBERG TV SHOW."

This article typifies the distortion that characterizes the arguments and approach of the KJVO camp toward those whom it considers its opponents.

Texe Marrs wrote that Dr. Don Wilkins had lost his voice during the taping of the Ankerberg program on the issue of new Bible translations. He begins the article by saying, "You can call it pure justice, a sign from God, or whatever you want, but eyebrows were sure raised recently during the tapings for Christian TV’s The John Ankerberg Show."

Then Marrs begins a series of distortions. First, he alleges that John Ankerberg attempted to "stack the deck" by having "five new version scholars but only three King James advocates." But there was no attempt to "stack the deck." Six KJVO advocates were invited; only three chose to appear. Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman and D. A. Waite, all leaders in the KJVO camp, declined our invitation.

Second, Marrs calls Ankerberg "a bitter opponent of the King James Bible," but this is also false. If it were true, why would John offer the King James Version as a premium on his TV shows? Why would he also offer quality study aids for the KJV?

Third, Marrs claims on one of the shows that Don Wilkins lost his voice, presumably as a punishment from God:

[It] happened when Ankerberg asked Dr. Don Wilkins, head of the New King James Version translation committee a key question. "Is it true," asked Ankerberg, "as Gail Riplinger reported in her best-selling book, New Age Bible Versions, that a number of the scholars that worked on the new translation committees lost their voice as punishment by God?"

As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth to answer—and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear his throat, but he couldn’t respond. Ankerberg and the other new version scholars were visibly startled. Finally an embarrassed and frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost inaudible manner, "I...I’ve...lost...my voice!"

A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James Only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here," Chambers insisted. But Ankerberg was hearing none of it. After a brief delay, the TV cameras began to roll again, after the amazing segment of Dr. Wilkin’s losing his voice had conveniently been excised!

This reporting is one long misrepresentation. First, Dr. Don Wilkins was on the translation committee of the New American Standard Bible, not the New King James Version, as Marrs stated.

Second, in previous shows Ankerberg had commented about Riplinger’s claim that new translations editors had lost their voices. He wanted an answer on this to quell the rumor and set the record straight since, obviously, none of the people present had lost their voices and neither did they know of this occurring to anyone else. But on the segment reported by Marrs, this was not Ankerberg’s question. Ankerberg’s question was to ask Wilkins about the credibility of Riplinger’s book. So Marrs has distorted the context as well.

Third, the event in question was not at all like Marrs reported it. Dr. John Weldon, Chief Researcher for ATRI, personally reviewed this segment of the tape where Wilkins supposedly lost his voice. He didn’t lose his voice at all; he merely developed a "frog" in his throat which took about five seconds to cough out. This happens to people all the time and is hardly a sign of God’s judgment, nor would it be unexpected with someone who had just flown in from Athens, Greece and was tired. In response, Wilkins simply cleared his throat and said, a bit embarrassed, but half in jest, "I’m losing my voice." Everyone laughed and he took a drink of water and then proceeded to answer Ankerberg’s question concerning the unreliability of Riplinger’s book. He went on immediately to state that the Lockman Foundation had spent six weeks in investigation of Riplinger’s book and that "what I personally found is that virtually everything she says is wrong, or a misquotation or a deliberate deception of people…."

So Wilkins did not lose his voice, Ankerberg and the new version scholars were not "visibly startled," or "shocked," Wilkins was not "embarrassed and frightened," etc.

If this really had been a punishment of God, as was the biblical case of Zechariah, Wilkins would not have been able to continue speaking at all. In the case of Zechariah, the angel pronounced a judgment that he would be unable to speak for a full nine months because he had not believed the angel’s words concerning the miraculous birth of John the Baptist: "And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their proper time" (Luke 1:20). Zechariah was indeed mute for an entire nine months (Luke 1:24, 57, 64). So, why did God allow Dr. Wilkins to continue speaking and mention that the Lockman Foundation had investigated Riplinger’s book and found it was completely false as to its claims? As James White, a participant in the debate, pointed out in, "The View from Marrs:"

Dr. Wilkins had one single problem; he immediately recovered and went on to demonstrate errors in KJV Only viewpoints. Dr. Wallace had flown in just an hour before the program began, yet he had no problems. I had no problems, Dr. Barker had no problems, and Dr. Farstad had no problems, either. Can’t we use the term "desperation" to describe the KJV Only attempt to read into this incident some divine judgment? Why didn’t God keep us all from discussing Riplinger’s errors? Why did Dr. Wilkins’ problem last for just a few seconds? And why did God allow us to repeatedly refute the KJV Only arguments through all eight programs?1

The John Ankerberg Show does its very best to produce quality Christian apologetics that attempt to defend the truth of the Christian faith and offer a biblical and reasoned evaluation of current issues. Unfortunately, the church of past and present has usually been less than excited about supporting apologetic ministries, cult evangelism, etc. Those like Dr. Ankerberg who suffer the personal and ministerial consequences of seeking to defend the truth should be commended rather than being unfairly criticized.

FOOTNOTES

James White, "The View from Marrs," fax to John Weldon dated October 16, 1995.

 

There was more than one English Bible before 1611, and the KJV was based on them. The KJV omitted some words and added some words that were in the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision.

Can you prove that the Roman Catholic Church hated the KJV more than it hated the 1560 Geneva Bible? The KJV took some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims N. T., and later a revised edition of the Douay-Rheims would take some renderings from the KJV.

King James I had promised toleration to Roman Catholics, and he had suspended the recusancy laws against Roman Catholics. It was only after great pressure from Parliament that James allowed the anti-Catholic laws to be renewed. Thus, the Roman Catholic Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was likely aimed first at Parliament and perhaps secondarily at James for breaking his promises to them. Where is any valid documented evidence that proves it was aimed at the KJV? There were already plenty of Protestant English Bibles available.

 

Perhaps it is not as simple as you thought....
This Passage does not justify the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word.

Please show us the Scriptural Passage that tells us that "there must be one Bible." Psalm 12:6-7 does not make this statement, nor does it reinforce your claim. I would advise you to be VERY CAREFUL as you are adding to the Message.

My "King James Bible" contains the Apocrypha.
As a matter of fact, so does my Geneva Bible, which predates the "King James Bible."
Does yours? If you have a REAL "King James Bible" then it should have contain all 80 Books......

First of all, how can he say anything if he "lost his voice?" Secondly, you failed to provide any Scriptural Proof for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word. Although that certainly was nice of you to claim that this is somehow God's Judgement, perhaps now you could provide the Scriptural Proof. It is not found in Psalm 12:6-7, nor is it found in Revelation 22:18.

 

KJVBible Thumper: "It is simple. God promised
to preserve His Word to every generation. Psalm 12:6-7."

Your assumption is incorrect and will lead to
further incorrect conclusions. Psalm 12;6-7
does not say that God will preserve His
word to every generation. I've shown time and time
again that Psalm 12:6 is parenthetic to the
rest of Psalm 12. By the KJV1611 edition sidenote,
the pronoun in Psalm 12:7 points to persons mentioned
in Psalm 12:5 NOT to God's words in Psalm 12:6.


"every generation" resulted in:
2 Verses in: Whole Bible
Verse Search Results (The King James Version (Authorized))

RESULTS: 1 - 2 of 2 total results

Es 9:28 (KJV1769):
And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout
every generation, every family, every province,
and every city; and that these days of Purim should
not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial
of them perish from their seed.

Pr 27:24 (KJV1769):
For riches are not for ever: and doth the crown
endure to every generation?

KJVBible Thumper: "Therefore,
since Gods Word is perfect and without error, all
versions cannot be the Word of God as they all
omit and add words."

Didn't have to look far for your error conclusion.
God's written word is perfect and without error.
But not every copy of it has to read exactly alike.
For there are many languages among man all of which
can be used to express the written word of God.

I and others have shown again and again that the KJVs
are not even the same. I know I have three different
paper KJVs on the shelves around the desk where
this computer sits. BTW, the KJV itself was really bad
about adding words to the the texts from which it was
translated.

KJVBible Thumper: "Many of the men involved in the MVs
have literaly lost their voice and cannot speak
in more then a whisper. Kenneth Taylor,
the author of the Living bible is one of these."

This isn't a true statement. Recall it is probably a sin
to spread baseless rumors about.

 

KJVBibleThumper said "It is simple. God promised to preserve His Word to every generation. Psalm 12:6-7. So it is here somewhere."

Psalm 12:6-7 was true in 1610, was it not? Therefore, they had his preserved word then. If they already had it, why did they make the KJV, and make it different? If Psalm 12:6-7 refers to the KJV, then it was a lie before then.

KJVBibleThumper said "Many of the men involved in the MVs have literaly lost their voice and cannot speak in more then a whisper. Kenneth Taylor, the author of the Living bible is one of these. On the very day his bible went to the presses he lost his voice, and all he will say is that it is because he tampered with the Word of God."

Complete ridiculous tabloid falsehood.

 

I don't think the movement has hijacked anything. Hence the "I" as in independant.

I do agree that it is sad that any church would treat a visitor (or member for that matter) in a less than gracious and christian manner. For any reason. May God have mercy on the culprit.

It was asked if there were any KJVO churches who were growing... etc.

My home church in Meridian Idaho comes to mind.
The faith promise for missions of this body of believers tops $100,000 consistenly year after year. We directly support over 90 foreign missionaries all over the world. We have grown from less than 250 souls to well over 1500 in the span of 20 years. This, of course, necessitates growing building space. We reach out to the community in 4 county jails, 3 regional prisons, 1 street mission, untold nursing homes, bus ministry, street evangelism, door to door visitation/evangelism, law enforcement in three cities, and welcome anybody with a hearty "glad you are here!". We frown on nobody for long hair, earrings, race, or any of the other things mentioned by previous posters in this thread. We are active in restoring broken homes, marriages, lives.
We do not believe one cannot get saved unless they use/believe the KJB. In fact we believe that if you want to use even the Living Bible and are active in winning the lost to Jesus...that's GREAT! We believe we are all in the battle together and have no business pointing our swords at each other to tear each other down. In fact we strive to build faith in God. We strive to edify the saints, evangelize the lost, equipping the church to reach a dying world.

Personally, I believe that if your "Sword" is pointed at the same enemy of our souls as is mine, then we ought to at least get along together while in the same foxhole.

I do not think the KJVO movement has hijacked anything. What is more likely is that some "FOOLS" have stepped out of fellowship with God and are trying to "lord it over" the precious souls of the brethren. And I think that is sad. What is also sad is the EQUAL foolishness of they on the other side of the issue frequently doing the same in their zeal to "correct" what they see is wrong. I think IMHO that both kinds of folks should be ashamed of themselves.

In His service;
Jim

 

No further comments?

Jim

 

If you are saying that the KJV-only movement has not yet hijacked or taken over the IFB, than
your statement is likely accurate. If you are suggesting that some KJV-only advocates have not attempted to "hijack" or take over the IFB, I disagree with it. Some if not many KJV-only
advocates go so far as to suggest that any
independent fundamental Baptists that do not accept the KJV-only theory are not even believers.

 

I refer you sir, to my original comments in the post you quoted from.
I believe I was quite clear as to what I said.
I did not say "not yet".
I did not say "some KJV-only advocates have not attempted".
Please re-read my post. This time with comprehension.
In His service;
Jim

 

When it is made an issue outside of an individual church, I would define that as an attempt to hijack other churches.

The I in IFB means that if you want to use only the KJV, go ahead, but when you impugn the motives or teachings of another Independant body of believers over such a peripheral issue, it is highly innapropriate, and that has been seen time and again by me.

I have personally been made to feel very unwelcome as a visitor in a KJVO church while I was looking for a church. Of course, some other KJVO churches made me feel more welcome than I was accustomed to. I have never been hugged by more people I didn't know in my entire life. It really varies widely, I would not be able to say that the KJVO movement has "hijacked" the IFB completely, but in my area, a church like mine that is very fundamental and conservative, and very active and growing, is looked down upon by others who would be in agreement for the most part besides that issue. How very sad. That is also why they should be separated from in many cases, since they are seeking to devour the body. There are several IFB churches that I know in my area that are not KJVO, so I would not say as a movement it has become synonomous, I would agree that there are individuals or groups within the IFB movement that are actively trying to define their specific camp as the only true IFB's and that is on both sides of several issues.

 

The KJVO movement has taken over the IFB top 1000

If you think it hasn't check out this link. I wouldn't submit a site to any listing that thinks that has anything to do with being IFB

IFB top 1000 sign in page

 

Fundamentalists have historically believed in a current inerrant scripture, not just the inerrancy of "the originals" which no longer exist. It is hard to "hijack" something of which you already possess the majority. It appears to be less the Bible believers doing the "hijacking" than the disbelievers in God's power and Christ's promise to preserve HIS inspired words.

 

Notice what the <banned word deleted> wrote on the website given.

"By submitting your site, you are stating that your site is a Baptist, KJV website. This is not a "free for all" Christian link website. This site is a listing of Independent, Fundamental, Baptist KJV 1611 websites. Any sites that do not meet this criteria are subject to being deleted without prior notice."

[ November 28, 2004, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

"Fundamentalists have historically believed in a current inerrant scripture, not just the inerrancy of "the originals" which no longer exist."
"
Ofcourse historically fundamentalists believed both the RSV and the KJV (and numerous other Bible translations as well) were current inerrant scripture.

 

The Traditional view of preservation (its even called that ) was inerrancy in the original manuscripts, with providential preservation of the manuscripts derived from them.

The requirement to "choose" one translation and call it the only inerrant one is a rather new phenomenon, at least as a widespread movement

 

...and read the preface to the 1611, and you'll notice the AV Translators saw the higher value of the Originals, even than their own translation.