A Timeline of the KJV-Only Movement

[Dr. Bob]

Appreciate the "continual" work and challenge you've accepted of nailing Jello to a tree in sorting thru this. The first year MBU started its seminary program (1969-70) there was great interest in the "manuscript" discussion, whether Greek texts from the oldest sources or Greek texts from the majority of documents (Byzantine Catholic) should be used. But no one in that day believed the KJV (whichever edition one uses) was "perfect". Fun (not ha-ha) to see the slippery slope in following decades and hopefully fundamental Baptists slowly move from such fruitless controversy to the true doctrine of inspiration and getting that message to the world.

 

[John of Japan]

Appreciate the "continual" work and challenge you've accepted of nailing Jello to a tree in sorting thru this. The first year MBU started its seminary program (1969-70) there was great interest in the "manuscript" discussion, whether Greek texts from the oldest sources or Greek texts from the majority of documents (Byzantine Catholic) should be used. But no one in that day believed the KJV (whichever edition one uses) was "perfect". Fun (not ha-ha) to see the slippery slope in following decades and hopefully fundamental Baptists slowly move from such fruitless controversy to the true doctrine of inspiration and getting that message to the world.

Amen to that.

Interestingly enough, I have several pamphlets by Kenneth I. Brown of Detroit BTS from 1977-1978 taking a critical text view on the mss.

Question: in line with the OP, my memory says that in those days the Greek profs at MBU used the UBS text. True?

 

[37818]

Where variant disagreements persist, it remains an issue of how we choose to identify an original text.

 

[robycop3]

If it’s wrong in some places, how do we know which places?

Every major revival and great awakening took place using the KJB. God has shown His approval.

If I can’t believe it all, I can’t believe any of it. IF there are errors, that is God’s problem, because HE promised to preserve His Word and I know He has. And guess what? There are NO originals.

Therefore, if errors exist (I don’t believe they do), I will preach them as God’s truth, because it’s up to Him to preserve His Word.

What's a "KJB"? A Russian minefield race ?

And proven goofs DO occur in the KJV.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Question: in line with the OP, my memory says that in those days the Greek profs at MBU used the UBS text. True?

Students were allowed to use any made-made compilation of Greek text in various exegesis classes, which made fun discussions and shed light on variants. I used the new ABS1 (1966 first edition of American Bible Society) and St Stephanos (1555 compilation of imho inferior Byzantine texts). Most used Nestles (whatever). I use Nestle-Alland27 since I can't get hold of a NA28.

We became so thankful for men who compiled and evaluated texts to verify what God REALLY said and not pious additions/explanations that became rampant in the copies of copies of copies of copies in the Byz family of documents.

 

[Dr. Bob]

BTW, we had a grad class using A.T. Robertson's 1500-page grammar of the NT. Found that more exciting than almost any class for wealth of Greek it unfolded. As a class worked thru 20 pages (or less) each class period. Halcyon days of study.

 

[Conan]

New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority
Maurice A. Robinson

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority

 

[Van]

Point taken. But where was the quote from? Who wrote this "Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith"?

See post 30, second to the last paragraph.

 

[John of Japan]

See post 30, second to the last paragraph.

There you say "Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith," just as you wrote again, but Post #30 does not say where the statement came from. So who wrote this doctrinal statement?

I just did a search and note that R. A. Torrey wrote a book with that title. Are you quoting from that book? If so, what page?

 

[Van]

There you say "Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith," just as you wrote again, but Post #30 does not say where the statement came from. So who wrote this doctrinal statement?

I just did a search and note that R. A. Torrey wrote a book with that title. Are you quoting from that book? If so, what page?

Here is what I found by simply clicking the link provided in the cited paragraph!

THE
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
BY

R. A. TORREY
Author of
"How to Bring Men to Christ,"
"What the Bible Teaches," etc., etc.

NEW YORK
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY

Copyright, 1918,
By R. A. Torrey

Printed in the United States of America ​

Now in Chapter 1, page 36 I found the quote.

 

[Deacon]

...where was the quote from? Who wrote this "Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith"?

Hi, John,
R.A. Torrey authored the quote.
I originally posted the text (post #30) to demonstrate an early 20th century orthodox position.
The link should take you to the book.

Rob

I have said that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given were absolutely inerrant, and the question of course arises to what extent is the Authorized Version, or the Revised Version, the inerrant Word of God. The answer is simple; they are the inerrant Word of God just to the extent that they are an accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given and to all practical intents and purposes they are a thoroughly accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, (emphasis in original)
R.A. Torrey (general editor of The Fundamentals) in Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, (Gutenburg.org) 1918. pp. 36-37.​

 

[John of Japan]

Here is what I found by simply clicking the link provided in the cited paragraph!

THE
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
BY

R. A. TORREY
Author of
"How to Bring Men to Christ,"
"What the Bible Teaches," etc., etc.

NEW YORK
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY

Copyright, 1918,
By R. A. Torrey

Printed in the United States of America ​

Now in Chapter 1, page 36 I found the quote.

Thank you!

We require our college students to give full data when writing a paper: author, title, publisher, year. It's pretty basic.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi, John,
R.A. Torrey authored the quote.
I originally posted the text (post #30) to demonstrate an early 20th century orthodox position.
The link should take you to the book.

Rob

I have said that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given were absolutely inerrant, and the question of course arises to what extent is the Authorized Version, or the Revised Version, the inerrant Word of God. The answer is simple; they are the inerrant Word of God just to the extent that they are an accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given and to all practical intents and purposes they are a thoroughly accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, (emphasis in original)
R.A. Torrey (general editor of The Fundamentals) in Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, (Gutenburg.org) 1918. pp. 36-37.​

Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the final part of the timeline as it now stands. I will probably still add more later, though. Plus, I will attach the whole corrected timeline for your convenience when I'm all finished. Feel free to continue to comment or add people and events.


Present Day

2024—Donald Allen Waite (1927-2024) passes. No one among his followers appears to be able to replace him and lead his branch of the KJV-Only movement.

In my opinion, there is virtually no one among KJV-Only advocates who show the leadership or writing ability of Ruckman or Waite or Hyles. Those who might be able to lead the movement are now senior saints. KJV-Only churches and preachers have essentially decided who and what ministries they will fellowship with. In my view the movement is dying. If there is a leader, it is one of the elderly men of the King James Research Council (King James Bible Research Council). There are some younger men on the council, though, but do they have leadership ability? I don’t know, I only ask.

 

[Van]

Thank you!

We require our college students to give full data when writing a paper: author, title, publisher, year. It's pretty basic.

Yes, just as basic as clicking on a link.

Misrepresenting a translation by the King James translators, as thoroughly accurate, certainly puts the 1918 blurb in the ancestral line of KJV Onlyism.

 

[Van]

Key KJV Onlyism doctrines held in the Present Day.

We believe that God has providentially preserved His Word, including the very words of Scripture, in the traditional texts of the Bible.

We believe the King James Version preserves, by accurate translation, the inerrancy of the Greek Received Text and the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic text for English speaking people.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, just as basic as clicking on a link.

Misrepresenting a translation by the King James translators, as thoroughly accurate, certainly puts the 1918 blurb in the ancestral line of KJV Onlyism.

To be fair to Torrey, he would have been absolutely opposed to the modern KJV-Only movement. He would never have said that the KJV was inerrant or inspired. Cf the best biography of him by Roger Martin, R.A. Torrey: Apostle of Certainty (Martin's PhD dissertation).

Torrey was the editor of "The Fundamentals," the set of books of essays which kicked off fundamentalism. He included in it an essay by L. W. Munhall, "Inspiration," which would have driven KJV-Only folk nuts, because it stood for the inspiration of the originals only, and spoke of the errancy of translations.

 

[Van]

To be fair to Torrey, he would have been absolutely opposed to the modern KJV-Only movement. He would never have said that the KJV was inerrant or inspired. Cf the best biography of him by Roger Martin, R.A. Torrey: Apostle of Certainty (Martin's PhD dissertation).

Torrey was the editor of "The Fundamentals," the set of books of essays which kicked off fundamentalism. He included in it an essay by L. W. Munhall, "Inspiration," which would have driven KJV-Only folk nuts, because it stood for the inspiration of the originals only, and spoke of the errancy of translations.

Say what you will, I provided a quote from his book of 1918 where he mistakenly said the KjV translation was thoroughly accurate.
That is the same view held by those in the movement.

 

[John of Japan]

Say what you will, I provided a quote from his book of 1918 where he mistakenly said the KjV translation was thoroughly accurate.
That is the same view held by those in the movement.

Not really. "Accurate" and "Inerrant and inspired" are two totally different concepts. Something can be "accurate" and still have errors. In fact, I personally believe that the KJV is an accurate translation, but I am certainly not KJV-Only. I read from the NKJV, the ESV, the Japanese Shinkaiyaku, etc., etc.

Again, at one point Torrey headed Moody Bible Institute, which was not then KJV-Only and is not now KJV-Only. He did not lead it in that direction. He also headed Biola for a time. Same thing there.

 

[Van]

Not really. "Accurate" and "Inerrant and inspired" are two totally different concepts. Something can be "accurate" and still have errors.

Again, at one point Torrey headed Moody Bible Institute, which was not then KJV-Only and is not now KJV-Only. He did not lead it in that direction. He also headed Biola for a time. Same thing there.

Sorry Sir, but rational minds can find scant difference between thoroughly accurate and inerrant. If something has an error, then it is not thoroughly accurate. OTOH if something is inerrant, it is thoroughly accurate.

The quoted blurb did not say or suggest the translation was inspired.
No one suggested the KJV Only movement was started at the time Mr. Torrey headed Moody or Biola.