A Timeline of the KJVO Movement

[John of Japan]

Finally, into this century:

2001—David Sorensen publishes Touch Not the Unclean Thing, with the subtitle, “The Text Issue and Separation.” His main thesis is radical: ecclesiastical separation must apply to the issue of Greek texts, not just liberalism as such. He writes, “A thesis of this writer is that the critical text is unholy through its manifold associations with apostasy” (p. 224). In other words, the Greek New Testament can be unholy, according to Sorenson, if it is not the TR, and churches and preachers should separate from those who use a critical Greek text. (Though I don’t allow my students to use the UBS, I have a hard time wrapping my head around this.) Listen to Sorensen claiming Catholic Marioloator Erasmus as a Baptist at about 18” here:

2003—Rick Norris publishes a very complete book of 535 pages (including bibliography) against the KJVO movement, The Unbound Scriptures: A Review of KJV-only Claims and Publications.

2009-2010—The DBS finally repudiates Riplinger, not originally because of her radical views but because she had lied about her divorces to D. A. Waite and his wife. They then distance themselves from her teaching. Phil Stringer actually calls her a “false teacher.” In the meantime, the DBS shrinks as various of its stalwarts leave within the next decade.

2014 or so—I’m not sure of the date, but some leading DBS members become disgruntled, especially Phil Stringer and David Brown, I believe. (I don’t know the reasons for the split.) They leave the DBS and start the King James Bible Research Council: Home. There are KJBRC videos on Youtube from 2014.

2016—Peter Ruckman dies. This begins the final years of the KJVO movement. (Or so I predict.)

 

[John of Japan]

BJU is "King James only as the campus standard in the undergraduate classroom and chapel pulpit."

Thank you. This is helpful.

 

[rlvaughn]

John, this question probably slipped through the cracks, with so much going on here. I want to get it back in before moderators decide to step in and close the thread due to length. You mentioned that Peter Ruckman's Bible Babel did not have too much influence, and that even few preachers in the independent Baptist movement pay any attention to it. Why do you think that is?

Thanks!

 

[robycop3]

John, this question probably slipped through the cracks, with so much going on here. I want to get it back in before moderators decide to step in and close the thread due to length. You mentioned that Peter Ruckman's Bible Babel did not have too much influence, and that even few preachers in the independent Baptist movement pay any attention to it. Why do you think that is?

Thanks!

i'm sure J of J will answer, but meanwhile, back at the ranch...

There were no decent modern versions being widely hawked in 1964, & the KJVO myth wasn't well-known at all. I'd say at that time, most considered Ruckman's book to be meant for full-time theologians & seminary instructors & not the general public. I don't think he pushed it too hard, as I didn't hear about til the 1980s, &then only after doing quite a bit of library study on the KJVO myth.

 

[Logos1560]

In 1842, Baptists David Bernard and Samuel Aaron published a book entitled The Faithful Translation: An Essay in Favour of Revising and Amending the KJV of the Holy Scriptures. In 1842, David Bernard had published a revision of the KJV made by Baptists and other believers. It was entitled The Holy Bible Being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars. This revision of the KJV was printed several years. A sixth edition printed in 1847 had "Baptist Bible" on its binding.

In 1850, Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff edited an edition of the KJV's NT entitled: The Commonly Received Version of the New Testament with several hundred emendations.

In 1866, the American Bible Union Version was printed, and its translators included some Baptists.

In 1912, the American Baptist Publication Society printed The Holy Bible: An Improved Edition, which was at least partially based on the American Bible Union Version.

There does not seem to have been any significant KJV-only movement among Baptists in those years that responded to these revisions of the KJV or English translations.

 

[rlvaughn]

There does not seem to have been any significant KJV-only movement among Baptists in those years that responded to these revisions of the KJV or English translations.

Interesting. One question might be how many rank and file Baptists even knew of the existence of these? Also, whether they caused some friction that would have drawn a response.

 

[robycop3]

J of J, when you're done with this study, I'd like to see you, or soemone else, post a study on how the KJVO myth became so prevalent among indy fundy Baptists.

My IFB church believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but does NOT believe the KJVO myth nor any other MAN-MADE doctrine of faith/worship.

KJVO doesn't seem to be as prevalent in other branches of Baptists. It seems to be about on the same level as it is among SDAs & similar cultics.

Could it be from the fact that some of the early daddies of the current edition of the KJVO myth were Baptists ?

 

[John of Japan]

John, this question probably slipped through the cracks, with so much going on here. I want to get it back in before moderators decide to step in and close the thread due to length. You mentioned that Peter Ruckman's Bible Babel did not have too much influence, and that even few preachers in the independent Baptist movement pay any attention to it. Why do you think that is?

Thanks!

In those days Ruckman was not well known. I once went with my Dad to one of his meetings in a nearby town and was impressed by his chalk art. But that was all we knew about him. Again, there were very few modern versions being sold in those days. Fundamentalists then simply opposed the liberal versions (RSV, GNB), and didn't worry about the KJV being replaced.

 

[John of Japan]

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).

I think Waite might have agreed in the beginning in the 1970's, but not as his movement progressed into the 1990's. After all, he had that great education from DTS. However, as time went on he began to support every KJV wacko who came along, like Riplinger.

 

[John of Japan]

J of J, when you're done with this study, I'd like to see you, or soemone else, post a study on how the KJVO myth became so prevalent among indy fundy Baptists.

My IFB church believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but does NOT believe the KJVO myth nor any other MAN-MADE doctrine of faith/worship.

KJVO doesn't seem to be as prevalent in other branches of Baptists. It seems to be about on the same level as it is among SDAs & similar cultics.

Could it be from the fact that some of the early daddies of the current edition of the KJVO myth were Baptists ?

I'll have to think about that. Or maybe we can think it through together. Next week I want to do a thread on how very influential IFB megachurch pastor Jack Hyles abandoned the teaching on inspiration and versions of his mentor, John R. Rice. Maybe that will be helpful in this issue.

 

[John of Japan]

In 1842, Baptists David Bernard and Samuel Aaron published a book entitled The Faithful Translation: An Essay in Favour of Revising and Amending the KJV of the Holy Scriptures. In 1842, David Bernard had published a revision of the KJV made by Baptists and other believers. It was entitled The Holy Bible Being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars. This revision of the KJV was printed several years. A sixth edition printed in 1847 had "Baptist Bible" on its binding.

In 1850, Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff edited an edition of the KJV's NT entitled: The Commonly Received Version of the New Testament with several hundred emendations.

In 1866, the American Bible Union Version was printed, and its translators included some Baptists.

In 1912, the American Baptist Publication Society printed The Holy Bible: An Improved Edition, which was at least partially based on the American Bible Union Version.

There does not seem to have been any significant KJV-only movement among Baptists in those years that responded to these revisions of the KJV or English translations.

Excellent contribution to the thread. Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Happy New Year, BB friends!

 

[robycop3]

I think Waite might have agreed in the beginning in the 1970's, but not as his movement progressed into the 1990's. After all, he had that great education from DTS. However, as time went on he began to support every KJV wacko who came along, like Riplinger.

I believe Waite disowned Riplinger after she flat-out lied to Mrs. Waite about her divorces.

 

[agedman]

I'll have to think about that. Or maybe we can think it through together. Next week I want to do a thread on how very influential IFB megachurch pastor Jack Hyles abandoned the teaching on inspiration and versions of his mentor, John R. Rice. Maybe that will be helpful in this issue.

Hyles abandoned more than the teachings of John R Rice!

I do hope that no one is influenced to think positively about Hyles or what he taught.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1030 pm EST / 730 pm PST

 

[John of Japan]

I believe Waite disowned Riplinger after she flat-out lied to Mrs. Waite about her divorces.

Yep, that's what my information is. It wasn't because she claimed to be an expert on things she was a beginner at, like linguistics. It wasn't because of her ridiculous doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

Hyles abandoned more than the teachings of John R Rice!

I do hope that no one is influenced to think positively about Hyles or what he taught.

I believe the thread I'm going to start about that will be informative. Wait for it.

 

[rlvaughn]

In 1817, the Tennessee Association of Baptists advised “that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them.” They had been disturbed by a Methodist circuit rider, John Hutchison, promoting a translation by John Wesley in their area, and telling folks that had been accepted by the Baptists. These Baptists settled the issue and moved on with life.

In the late 1820s and 1830s, the Baptists in Kentucky were disturbed by the Campbellite movement, one element of which was the promotion of the Alexander Campbell translation of the New Testament. Associations adopted resolutions and/or articles such as this: “We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God, and is the only rule of faith and practice.” These Baptists settled the issue and moved on with life.

I think ultimately one big difference between historical “KJVO” of one fashion or another, and the “modern KJVO movement” is this. Up until the late 20th century, there were conflicts, but never any serious contenders that actually threatened the use of the King James translation as the primary Bible of use.

 

[Jerome]

Yes, as that states that inspiration was to the original books....

No it does not state that, read it again:

1679 Baptist Confession

"XXXVII. Article.
Of the Sacred Scripture.
The Authority of the holy Scripture, dependeth not upon the Authority of any Man, but only upon the Authority of God....no Decrees of Popes, or Councils, or Writings of any Person whatsoever, are of equal Authority with the sacred Scriptures. And by the holy Scriptures we understand, the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue....All which are given by the Inspiration of God"

 

[Jerome]

1917...W. B. Riley... "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance Publ. Co., 1917)\

Riley considered that the first characteristic belief of the Old Conception (that the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down) had died out at the time he was writing (1917).

He considered the second characteristic belief (inerrancy of the King James Version) to be on its way out in 1917.

Regarding the third characteristic belief (literal acceptance and interpretation alone correct) he considered that some people probably would continue believing in stuff like a literal six twenty-four hour days of creation [Riley was an advocate of the day-age theory]:


"The Old Conception....

"first, that the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down; second, that the King James Version was absolutely inerrant; third, that its literal acceptance and interpretation was, alone, correct.

Was the Bible finished in heaven and handed down?

That is the charge that is made against the old conception, and perhaps there have been people in the world who thought it....I have never met an intelligent man who contended for such a position; consequently I conclude that that part of the old conception has now passed.

Is the King James version absolutely inerrant?

On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained....and yet I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand."

"Is a literal acceptance and interpretation alone correct?

This doctrine has always had its adherents, and perhaps always will. Yet it belongs distinctly to the old conception. Out of this view has grown the very claim with which modern science has been compel led to take issue. It was this view that made men say that God created the earth in six "literal" days of twenty-four hours each."