Rice sometimes quoted the American Standard Version, but always preached from the KJV. To be honest, though, he never did much study in textual criticism, and made mistakes in that area in his book, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible.
-
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
I know J Vernon always used his Kjv Scofield, but did at times like to use his own translation of the passage and use the notes from new Scofield
1973—David Otis Fuller’s second influential book appears, True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined.
1978—D. A. Waite founds the Dean Burgon Society (DBS). Since Waite has scholarly credentials (Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary), the society has early credibility. However, in the original articles of faith there were signs of a KJVO position (Articles of Faith, Operation & Organization). Their early credibility is helped by their reprints of such scholarly authors of the past as John Burgon (The Revision Revised of 1883 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark) of 1871) and Edward Miller (A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1886) and their early opposition to Ruckman. However, by perhaps the mid ’80s the DBS has clearly become KJVO, eventually supporting Gail Riplinger, and with some of its authors even quoting Ruckman as a scholar (for example, Jack Moorman in his books).
1979—The first work by an evangelical scholar on the controversy is published, The King James Version Debate, by D. A. Carson. However, oddly enough for a major evangelical scholar, Carson is not that literate concerning the movement. He doesn’t even mention Ruckman. His book is actually opposing the Textus Receptus priority position of Hills and Fuller, and the Byzantine/Majority priority positions of Wilbur Pickering, Jakob van Bruggen, Zane Hodges and others, rather than the KJVO position per se, though he does spend some space refuting J. J. Ray.
1980s—The KJVO movement gains ground. Major fundamental schools such as Bob Jones University and Tennessee Temple University continue with a broader stand on Bible versions, even using the UBS Greek New Testament in their classes. (Maranatha and Northland also did so.) Pensacola Christian College (founded in 1974) takes a TR Only route. Ruckman is widely thought to be too radical even by other KJVO advocates.
1981—What is probably the first work by a fundamentalist scholar against the KJVO movement appears, The Truth about the King James Version Controversy, by BJU Greek professor Stuart Custer.
1978—D. A. Waite founds the Dean Burgon Society (DBS). Since Waite has scholarly credentials (Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary), the society has early credibility. However, in the original articles of faith there were signs of a KJVO position (Articles of Faith, Operation & Organization). Their early credibility is helped by their reprints of such scholarly authors of the past as John Burgon (The Revision Revised of 1883 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark) of 1871) and Edward Miller (A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1886) and their early opposition to Ruckman. However, by perhaps the mid ’80s the DBS has clearly become KJVO, eventually supporting Gail Riplinger, and with some of its authors even quoting Ruckman as a scholar (for example, Jack Moorman in his books).
1979—The first work by an evangelical scholar on the controversy is published, The King James Version Debate, by D. A. Carson. However, oddly enough for a major evangelical scholar, Carson is not that literate concerning the movement. He doesn’t even mention Ruckman. His book is actually opposing the Textus Receptus priority position of Hills and Fuller, and the Byzantine/Majority priority positions of Wilbur Pickering, Jakob van Bruggen, Zane Hodges and others, rather than the KJVO position per se, though he does spend some space refuting J. J. Ray.
1980s—The KJVO movement gains ground. Major fundamental schools such as Bob Jones University and Tennessee Temple University continue with a broader stand on Bible versions, even using the UBS Greek New Testament in their classes. (Maranatha and Northland also did so.) Pensacola Christian College (founded in 1974) takes a TR Only route. Ruckman is widely thought to be too radical even by other KJVO advocates.
1981—What is probably the first work by a fundamentalist scholar against the KJVO movement appears, The Truth about the King James Version Controversy, by BJU Greek professor Stuart Custer.
1984—Around this time, megachurch pastor Jack Hyles abandons the view on the KJV of his mentor, John R. Rice, and takes a KJVO position. I'm going to do a separate thread on Hyles and the KJV sometime next week, since this thread is almost full.
1990s—D. A. Waite writes most of his books defending the KJV. KJVO advocates begin to insist on calling the translation the “King James Bible” as opposed to a version. The Dean Burgon Society (DBS) helps the movement.
1993—New Age Bible Versions by G. A. Riplinger is published. (Riplinger is later found to be Gail, a woman.) She has no training in theology, translation, the ancient languages, or linguistics. (However, she claims to be a linguist and a Greek expert since she taught English to Greek people for three years.) Not only is this book filled with factual errors, its very premise (that a Bible translation can promote the New Age movement) is badly flawed. However, many jump on the Riplinger bandwagon and promote the book, including the Dean Burgon Society, and Curtis Hutson, the editor of the Sword of the Lord following John R. Rice. Strangely enough, though fundamentalists generally oppose woman preachers, many independent Baptist churches had Riplinger in to lecture during the 1990s into the 2000s.
1994—William P. Grady, a professor at Hyles-Anderson College, publishes a KJVO book based on history called Final Authority, a phrase which becomes a watchword among KJVO advocates. Among Grady’s many charges are that Westcott and Hort were Jesuit plants (p. 214)!
1995—Bethany House publishes The King James Only Controversy by James White against the movement. It is recommended by many evangelical scholars such as Geisler, Metzger and Carson. However, it is marred by many factual errors. White is not a scholar but more of an apologist.
1990s—D. A. Waite writes most of his books defending the KJV. KJVO advocates begin to insist on calling the translation the “King James Bible” as opposed to a version. The Dean Burgon Society (DBS) helps the movement.
1993—New Age Bible Versions by G. A. Riplinger is published. (Riplinger is later found to be Gail, a woman.) She has no training in theology, translation, the ancient languages, or linguistics. (However, she claims to be a linguist and a Greek expert since she taught English to Greek people for three years.) Not only is this book filled with factual errors, its very premise (that a Bible translation can promote the New Age movement) is badly flawed. However, many jump on the Riplinger bandwagon and promote the book, including the Dean Burgon Society, and Curtis Hutson, the editor of the Sword of the Lord following John R. Rice. Strangely enough, though fundamentalists generally oppose woman preachers, many independent Baptist churches had Riplinger in to lecture during the 1990s into the 2000s.
1994—William P. Grady, a professor at Hyles-Anderson College, publishes a KJVO book based on history called Final Authority, a phrase which becomes a watchword among KJVO advocates. Among Grady’s many charges are that Westcott and Hort were Jesuit plants (p. 214)!
1995—Bethany House publishes The King James Only Controversy by James White against the movement. It is recommended by many evangelical scholars such as Geisler, Metzger and Carson. However, it is marred by many factual errors. White is not a scholar but more of an apologist.
There is quite a difference between some and none. I have some more of the same type of things, but don't want to muddle up John's thread with lots of extraneous material. I also think the truth is more complicated that simple observations. (For example, little need for any serious scrutiny about the KJV in times and places where everyone was using it.)
John, why do you think that is?
I would be curious to know how many stayed Geneva even when the 1611 hit....
Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173). Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).
Would Waite agree with these clear statements by Alfred Martin as favorably edited and reprinted by David Otis Fuller, who was a member of the Organizing Committee which established the Dean Burgon Society as well as being one of its first two vice-presidents (Dean Burgon News, January, 1979, pp. 1, 6)? David Cloud asserted that “Fuller was a co-founder of the Dean Burgon Society with Donald Waite” (O Timothy, Vol. 12, Issue 5, 1995, p. 4).
Would Waite agree with these clear statements by Alfred Martin as favorably edited and reprinted by David Otis Fuller, who was a member of the Organizing Committee which established the Dean Burgon Society as well as being one of its first two vice-presidents (Dean Burgon News, January, 1979, pp. 1, 6)? David Cloud asserted that “Fuller was a co-founder of the Dean Burgon Society with Donald Waite” (O Timothy, Vol. 12, Issue 5, 1995, p. 4).
Burgeon seemed to be neither TR perfect, not Kjv perfect, despite KJVO claiming him as their patron textual critic!
Pretty sure Waite would not agree. I believe he and the DBS have become more and more radical down through the years. Witness how the DBS even sold Riplinger's ridiculous books back in the day, until they found out she had been divorced twice, and she threatened frivolous lawsuits. (I have to admit the DBS took a stand against her then, finally, and repudiated her.) Again, DBS author Jack Moorman often quotes Ruckman favorably.
If they fully endorse the peter Ruckman "study bible", all that one needs to know!
1996—Jack Hyles gives an honorary doctorate to Gail Riplinger at his “Pastors’ School.”
1998—Pensacola Christian College and Bob Jones University clash on the issues after a conference at PCC. The speakers are Dell Johnson, head of the PCC seminary, and Lutheran scholar Theodore Letis, a noted defender of the TR. The conference video tapes are widely distributed; the third tape is an open attack on BJU. See the response of Bob Jones III in a Word document here: https://bju.typepad.com/BJUPCC.doc.
1999—A major work with essays by fundamentalist scholars is published opposing the KJVO stance, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, edited by James B. Williams. The subtitle is, “A Layman’s Guide to How We Got Our Bible.” It draws the ire of numerous KJVO advocates.
1998—Pensacola Christian College and Bob Jones University clash on the issues after a conference at PCC. The speakers are Dell Johnson, head of the PCC seminary, and Lutheran scholar Theodore Letis, a noted defender of the TR. The conference video tapes are widely distributed; the third tape is an open attack on BJU. See the response of Bob Jones III in a Word document here: https://bju.typepad.com/BJUPCC.doc.
1999—A major work with essays by fundamentalist scholars is published opposing the KJVO stance, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, edited by James B. Williams. The subtitle is, “A Layman’s Guide to How We Got Our Bible.” It draws the ire of numerous KJVO advocates.
Read their response , and still trying to see hw BJU was not also KJVO then?
So there would be Kjvo holding to originals only inspired, and others that translation would be also?
BJU has never been KJVO.
They only allow and use that translation though, correct?
They did when I was there, 1970-1972. Again, they pushed the NASB in their bookstore--I still have my NASB NT first edition from there. I don't know about now.
Huh? Who, me?Are you trying to tell us that John R's book was not inspired????
In fact it was inspired--but only in a human sense.
So, you had quite the influence over J. R.?Huh? Who, me?
- Status