Featured A Timeline of the KJVO Movement

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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"

 

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."