• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Many have been unaware of the important 1743 Cambridge KJV revision or edition. For many years in histories of our English Bible, there has been overemphasis on the 1762 Cambridge edition and neglect of this earlier important 1743 Cambridge edition.

David Norton wrote: “The long-missing element of careful proof-reading and correction of the text was resumed in this 1743 Bible” (KJB: a Short History, p. 161). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The folio Bible that Parris produced for Cambridge University Press in 1743 was an important edition because of the principles on which it was edited” (Bible, p. 136). Campbell does not even refer to the later 1762 Cambridge edition. David Crystal referred to present KJV editions being derived from “F. S. Parris’s Cambridge edition of 1743” along with the 1769 Oxford (Begat, p. 9). David Norton observed: “Parris shows himself to have been a very perceptive editor, highly attentive to the relationship between the translation and the original, and sensitive to small details of language and punctuation” (KJB: a Short History, p. 162). John Anthony Nordstrom observed: “Parris’s great accomplishments were printed in the next Cambridge Bible of 1743” (Stained with Blood, p. 224). Changes introduced in the 1743 Cambridge can be found in London, Oxford, and Cambridge editions before the 1762 Cambridge edition was printed. A 1747 London KJV edition was likely based mainly on the 1743 Cambridge. Among whatever earlier editions he may have used or compared, F. S. Parris may have consulted the 1660 London edition or have been aware of its editing concerning the use of nominative case “ye.” It was the 1743 Cambridge edition that introduced [perhaps reintroduced from the 1660 London] the nominative case “ye” for “you” in over 200 places. The 1743 Cambridge also introduced many of the uses of an apostrophe to indicate possession.
Excellent addition to the thread.
 

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Does the KJV teach you to put words in the mouths of others that they did not state and thus bear false witness?

The Church of England makers of the KJV maintained that no translation would be perfect.

Do you hide behind subjectively chosen English renderings despite no Biblical warrant for doing so?

As usual, you fight in a field where I'm not.
This is not about the KJB, this is about your claims that there is no perfect Bible anywhere, in any age, in any language, let alone the KJB.
 

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
A bunch of embittered intellectual Christians, slapping each other on the back, proud of proving to the ignorant KJVOs that there is no perfect Bible anywhere, in any version, in any age, in any language...the serpent's job is done, you now carry that dark-flamed torch.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1894—Edward Scrivener edits a Greek NT to represent the text used by the KJV translators.

1917—Some say that W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance Publ. Co., 1917) that there was a group of men called the “old conception” that believed in an inerrant KJV. However, this is actually reading Riley wrong. His term “old conception” did not describe a group, but a concept. (His “new conception” was modernism.) I tried to upload the book here, but the file was too big. What Riley actually wrote was that he had never met anyone who believed in a perfect translation. See for yourself on pp. 9-123. (Follow the Riley link here: Indiana Authors and Their Books - Home)

1924—Philip Mauro writes Which Version? opposing the original language text behind the Revised Version. (Download a pdf file at: Which Version by Philip Mauro : Mauro, Philip : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). Mauro is claimed by some as an early King James advocate. The book also does not launch a movement.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
this is about your claims that there is no perfect Bible anywhere, in any age, in any language, let alone the KJB.

Where do I supposedly make the statements that you try to put into my mouth?

Do you ignore and avoid what the Scriptures actually state and teach?

It is from the Scriptures that believers determine that words added by men are not the word of God and that errors introduced by men are not the word of God.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have to sneak in more years in the timeline, just in case a nattering nabob of negativity sidetracks the thread.

1930—Benjamin Wilkinson writes Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Since Wilkinson was a Seventh Day Adventist, this work was virtually unknown to independent Baptists. Therefore, it also did not launch a movement. Later, when it was included in Which Bible, ed. by David Otis Fuller (1970), Baptists finally noticed it.

1955—God Wrote Only One Bible, by Jasper James Ray, is published by Eye Opener Press. It is somewhat of a mystery to this day who Ray is or was. The book has very little circulation or influence until the 1970s. Ray plagiarized much of his book from Benjamin Wilkinson’s previous work, according to Gary Hudson in “The Real Eye Opener” (Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. II, No. 2, Spring 1992). Ray’s book was little known outside of his own circles, so it did not launch the movement, though later on it had influence through reprints.

These two books, flawed as they are, are still referred to often by KJVO writers. D. A. Waite credits them, along with Believing Bible Study by Edward Hills (1967), as influencing him in The Case for the King James Bible.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1956—Influenced by Burgon, Presbyterian scholar Edward Hills publishes The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. As a genuine textual scholar who had done work in the Ceasarean text (Th. D. in textual criticism from Harvard with liberal textual critic Kirsopp Lake as one of the readers), Hills commands respect among the founders of the KJVO movement, though he himself was not KJVO. Among others, Ruckman quoted from him extensively, though Hills would certainly not have agreed with Ruckman. Hills’ innovation was to teach a doctrine of preservation based on what he called the “logic of faith.”

1963—John R. Rice edits and publishes A Coffer of Jewels about the Bible. Included is an essay by W. A. Criswell on “The Preservation of the Word of God,” which does not mention anything about a KJVO movement, evidence that the movement was not yet in existence at that time based on Rice’s irenic positions.

1964—Peter Ruckman publishes his first book in defense of the KJV, Bible Babel (Pensacola, FL: Bible Believer’s Press, 1964). However, it does not launch a movement as of yet. Few preachers pay any attention to it, especially in the independent Baptist movement.

1967—Edward Hills publishes his second book on preservation, Believing Bible Study. Though his two books did not teach KJVO doctrine, his teaching on providential preservation provided a doctrinal basis for the movement. However, most in the movement ignore the difference in providence (necessary for preservation) and miracle (necessary for inspiration).

1969—John R. Rice publishes his magnum opus, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible. Though Chapter XIX is on preservation, there is nothing about a controversy involving the preservation of the KJV, evidence that there was not yet a definable movement in 1969. If there had been a movement at this point, Rice would surely have written about it.

Tomorrow: the big reveal--when the KJVO movement actually became a movement.

Next week: How and when Jack Hyles joined the movement, using research from my upcoming book on John R. Rice.
 
Last edited:

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1917—Some say that W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance Publ. Co., 1917) that there was a group of men called the “old conception” that believed in an inerrant KJV. However, this is actually reading Riley wrong. His term “old conception” did not describe a group, but a concept. (His “new conception” was modernism.) I tried to upload the book here, but the file was too big. What Riley actually wrote was that he had never met anyone who believed in a perfect translation. See for yourself on pp. 9-123.
John, you are correct that some misread this as a group rather than a concept. Yet there had to be minds -- people -- to conceive the idea, unless Riley is just talking in the abstract. I do not think he is referring to any group or movement, but it sure seems that he imagines people who believe the concept.
There are at least three features of the old conception, each of which has now passed away. They are, 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.
While he says here this view has passed away, he writes later that:
On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained.
And:
Of its translation from language to language they have never learned, 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.
I believe the entire book can be read HERE. [Added to say, I guess that is just a portion of the book.]
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is somewhat of a mystery to this day who Ray is or was.
I did a little research on Jasper J. Ray and posted it HERE a couple of years. Even with that additional info, he is still something of a mystery, but it reveals a bit more about who he was than was previously known (as far as I can tell).
 
Last edited:

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
Where do I supposedly make the statements that you try to put into my mouth?

Do you ignore and avoid what the Scriptures actually state and teach?

It is from the Scriptures that believers determine that words added by men are not the word of God and that errors introduced by men are not the word of God.

Do you believe there is any 66-book Bible anywhere in the world right now, any version, in any tongue, that is perfect in every way?
Do you believe there was such a 66-book perfect Bible at anytime in the past?
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John, you are correct that some misread this as a group rather than a concept. Yet there had to be minds -- people -- to conceive the idea, unless Riley is just talking in the abstract. I do not think he is referring to any group or movement, but it sure seems that he imagines people who believe the concept. While he says here this view has passed away, he writes later that: And: I believe the entire book can be read HERE. [Added to say, I guess that is just a portion of the book.]
Good points. At any rate, Riley was quite vague about the whole thing. He gave no illustrations or descriptions of those who actually held the view in his day, except for the questionable story from the modernist about a farmer who thought the Bible had fallen from Heaven.

I tried to link to an actual PDF of Riley's book that I was able to download, but kept getting an error reading from the BB. But it is possible to read the whole book online from your link. Good job!
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is somewhat of a mystery to this day who Ray is or was.
No it's not.

He was a Sunday School Union missionary in Oregon:

Albany (Ore.) Democrat-Herald, September 20, 1947, p. 4

"Missionary J. J. Ray Honored"

"More than 100 friends of Missionary J. J. Ray gathered at Junction City grange hall for a surprise sunday school rally which culminated in an ovation for the work done by Mr. Ray in his 21 years of missionary work of the American Sunday School Union....from members of the Portland, Corvallis-Albany, and Eugene camps of the Gideons; from members of the American Sunday School Union sunday schools scattered over Linn, Lane, Benton and Douglas counties and from a host of other friends In Oregon and Washington. A special Oregon Trail bus was chartered from Albany to accommodate the large group coming from that place to participate in honoring Missionary Ray for his work In the Sunday school field."
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No it's not.

He was a Sunday School Union missionary in Oregon:

Albany (Ore.) Democrat-Herald, September 20, 1947, p. 4

"Missionary J. J. Ray Honored"

"More than 100 friends of Missionary J. J. Ray gathered at Junction City grange hall for a surprise sunday school rally which culminated in an ovation for the work done by Mr. Ray in his 21 years of missionary work of the American Sunday School Union....from members of the Portland, Corvallis-Albany, and Eugene camps of the Gideons; from members of the American Sunday School Union sunday schools scattered over Linn, Lane, Benton and Douglas counties and from a host of other friends In Oregon and Washington. A special Oregon Trail bus was chartered from Albany to accommodate the large group coming from that place to participate in honoring Missionary Ray for his work In the Sunday school field."
Thank you, Master Researcher Jerome! (And I sincerely mean that title.)
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A bunch of embittered intellectual Christians, slapping each other on the back, proud of proving to the ignorant KJVOs that there is no perfect Bible anywhere, in any version, in any age, in any language...the serpent's job is done, you now carry that dark-flamed torch.
Until the KJVO movement though, none saw the translations as being perfect!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top