Who in church history before KJVO supported then a perfect translation?
-
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!
A Timeline of the KJVO Movement
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Do you disobey the Scriptures by bearing false witness?
You do not prove that the poster whom you accuse actually denies God and His word.
You do not prove that disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning or teaching is at all a denial of God and His word.
Here is one. Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists in 1905 had an Abstract of Principles that stated:
I currently do not have an earlier Mates Creek District minutes book, but expect that the statement goes back prior to that. (They ordered the Abstract printed in the minutes, but did not adopt or revise them in 1905.)
Ronnie Vaughan
Member
I haven't seen any bitterness anywhere.
I asked YOU! Your failure to answer means YOU can't.
Not necessiarly!
1970 is the year I peg as the beginning of the KJVO movement. I do mean "as a movement." Note what happened in that year and the early 1970's.
1970—Peter Ruckman publishes The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, and “Ruckmanism” is born. Ruckmanism is characterized by a disdain for modern scholarship (he claims that the LXX was a myth), bellicosity (using very intemperate language for anyone who disagrees with him), and a doctrine of advanced revelation, which is the belief that not only is the KJV a perfect version, but the original language texts in Hebrew and Greek must be corrected from the KJV. Ruckman gains followers for his beliefs throughout the 1970s through this book and others.
1970—David Otis Fuller, a graduate of Wheaton and Princeton Seminary, edits and publishes Which Bible? which includes the entire 1930 work by Seventh Day Adventist Wilkinson. Fuller neglects to mention Wilkinson’s affiliation. The book also includes articles by majority text scholars such as Zane Hodges and Edward Hills. Articles by other well-known scholars such as Robert Dick Wilson, Herman Hoskier, and Sir Robert Anderson give the book credibility. This book and others edited by Fuller influence fundamentalists who are not attracted to Ruckman’s views or attitudes.
1971—Influenced by books by Fuller, Hills, and J. J. Ray, D. A. Waite writes his first book on the subject, The Case for the Received Text of Hebrew and Greek Underlying the King James Bible: A Summary of the Evidence and Argument. (See the Foreword to Waite’s 1998 revision of this book, The Case for the King James Bible.)
1970s—With these three publications the KJVO movement is off and running. Though there were individuals before this who were KJVO, there was no real movement per se until 1970 in my view. The great majority of Fundamentalists still use other versions and avoid or ignore the growing controversy. For example, at Tennessee Temple College in the mid-1970s, Lee Roberson announces in chapel that all arguments on campus about Bible versions are prohibited. (I remember this announcement, and it was confirmed to me recently by fellow students.) Throughout the 1970s until his death in 1980, John R. Rice writes various articles in the Sword of the Lord opposing Ruckmanism. For this he earned the opprobrium of early KJVO advocates such as Herbert F. Evans, who quoted letters from Rice without permission in his pamphlet Dear Dr. John: Where is my bible? (sic; Wonderful Word Publishers, Inc., 1976).
1970—Peter Ruckman publishes The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, and “Ruckmanism” is born. Ruckmanism is characterized by a disdain for modern scholarship (he claims that the LXX was a myth), bellicosity (using very intemperate language for anyone who disagrees with him), and a doctrine of advanced revelation, which is the belief that not only is the KJV a perfect version, but the original language texts in Hebrew and Greek must be corrected from the KJV. Ruckman gains followers for his beliefs throughout the 1970s through this book and others.
1970—David Otis Fuller, a graduate of Wheaton and Princeton Seminary, edits and publishes Which Bible? which includes the entire 1930 work by Seventh Day Adventist Wilkinson. Fuller neglects to mention Wilkinson’s affiliation. The book also includes articles by majority text scholars such as Zane Hodges and Edward Hills. Articles by other well-known scholars such as Robert Dick Wilson, Herman Hoskier, and Sir Robert Anderson give the book credibility. This book and others edited by Fuller influence fundamentalists who are not attracted to Ruckman’s views or attitudes.
1971—Influenced by books by Fuller, Hills, and J. J. Ray, D. A. Waite writes his first book on the subject, The Case for the Received Text of Hebrew and Greek Underlying the King James Bible: A Summary of the Evidence and Argument. (See the Foreword to Waite’s 1998 revision of this book, The Case for the King James Bible.)
1970s—With these three publications the KJVO movement is off and running. Though there were individuals before this who were KJVO, there was no real movement per se until 1970 in my view. The great majority of Fundamentalists still use other versions and avoid or ignore the growing controversy. For example, at Tennessee Temple College in the mid-1970s, Lee Roberson announces in chapel that all arguments on campus about Bible versions are prohibited. (I remember this announcement, and it was confirmed to me recently by fellow students.) Throughout the 1970s until his death in 1980, John R. Rice writes various articles in the Sword of the Lord opposing Ruckmanism. For this he earned the opprobrium of early KJVO advocates such as Herbert F. Evans, who quoted letters from Rice without permission in his pamphlet Dear Dr. John: Where is my bible? (sic; Wonderful Word Publishers, Inc., 1976).
Last edited:
But it certainly shows EVASION & HESITATION. If this gent thinks he has a perfect Bible, why can't he share it with me or others ?
The opinions of men would not establish something to be Bible doctrine.
Believers are at liberty in Christ to esteem which Bible translation that they may prefer, but these personal preferences, opinions, and reasonings of men would not be actual Bible doctrine or a doctrine of God.
Over a period of time, the personal preferences of a group of believers could also become a tradition of men, which may be incorrectly taught as being a doctrine or commandment of God (Mark 7:7-9, Matt. 15:9, Col. 2:8).
Personal preferences or traditions of men may also become part of some local congregations’ church constitutions and statements of faith, but that would not make them scriptural.
Again not necessarily - could be a person has not posted - or they are searching for additional inf.
Thus the need to use words such as apparently or the like.
Now, it is possible you are totally right - but then again maybe not.
Remember- normally assuming is not the best thing.
Here is the bottom line - some people will never change their views, no matter what you say, do, or show them.
I saw the same thing when it came to my driving instruction. for Example - when you see a sign that says "merge" one mile ahead - many people want to merge at that moment - which is totally wrong - especially if they drive in the middle of the street -and blocking others. In fact, I would tell my class that your could actually be ticked for impeding traffic. There is a proper way to merge - too bad most people follow the crowd and do it the wrong way.
So, You can tell someone something and if they dont agree with you - so be it - and I move on.
But Roby - Let me ask you this one important question:
Will the belief in that the KJV is the only inspired version
and every other version is a perversion -
Will that belief keep you out of Heaven?
See post 68. It was called Bible Babel, but I really don't believe it had much influence.
This is a good addition to the thread. I would agree that the revelation of Scripture is inspired, but that is not necessarily touting a word-for-word preservation such as taught by H. D. Williams with his VPP doctrine (verbal plenary preservation).
Interesting that Muslims on their Koran and the KJVO are bedfellows.
We accept that the translation warts and all is still the Infallible word of the Lord unto us today.
John R Rice might have used and preferred the Kjv, as did someone like J Vernon Megee, but both of them to their credit knew that there were places where the Kjv either got it wrong or could be improved upon!
Good points, and think that there was none really stating translation are either inspired or perfect until arrival of the KJVO movement.
So you didn't bother to read post #83, from 1905? Or do you just ignore whatever doesn't fit your agenda?
I did read your posting, and appreciated it, as just did confirm to me at least that KJVO view was very much a minority view until the KJVO movement came along!
That was 14 years before I was saved, so I didn't know anything about it then.
- Status