Beginnings of the KJVO sect

[tinytim]

Thanks everyone for your imput. The Baptist association I'm affiliated with is dealing with the KJVO debate. It is, not only, causing problems within our association (about 20 churches) but churches are spliting because of it. I feel as if i'm in a war zone. There is a class being formed, as we speak, to address Biblical history. It will be held in April. I'm trying to gather all information I can in order to discuss the truth. Again thanks, now that i have some info, I'll research the facts. Even after reading all the posts so far I believe I can tell which statements were researched and which weren't. But I'll take all into consideration. BTW, there may be other questions I have in the next few months leading up to the class. I just want to know the truth.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Westminster Confession, 1646

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

So, if the Westminster Confession is still applicable today, we should all have modern Bible versions.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you Robycop3 for sharing this useful history.

My comments aren't researched, but anadotal.

In 1967 I was stationed in South Carolina.
I listed to the radio preachers. I sent off
and got an anti-RSB pamplet from a KJV salesman.

I was saved as a child in 1952. I became an
adult human (21) in 1964. The rise of KJVO-ism
has taken place largely while i was a Christian
adult human.

In the late 1970s the KJVO were saying that
a translation of the Textus Receptus (TR) would
be acceptable. A group of American Evangelics (mostly
mainstream like Baptists, Prespertians, Methodist,
Christian Church, etc.) set out to retranslate the
TR into 1980s English. The result, released in 1985
was the New King James Version (nKJV).
The main argument i've seen by KJVOs against the nKJV
is the triquetra symbol on the title page --
not much against the contents.

The nKJV used the TR source unless compelling
evidence considered another source, in which case
the chagne was footnoted. If non-compelling evidence
existed (i.e. the TR was followed) that also was
the subject of a footnote.

So, we have the 100% baby baptizer translators (KJV)
and the 20% baby baptizer translters (nKJV).
I'm going with the less baby baptizer group, at least
their language is closer to my "Twenty Ought-eth decade"
English language.

BTW, my pastor, in his 43rd year of
ministry, usually reads from a modern
version, but tells the KJV term or phrase
used (obviously he memorized much of
the Bible from the KJV).

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by AV Defender:
I may or may not have already posted this,so here it is,read it or reject it at your leisure:


KJVonlyism in 1890: "I will take up the King James Bible; I consider it to be a perfect Bible." (Talmage T.D, vol.18, pg.255)

KJVonlyism preached in 1880 in the Gospel Standard. Philpots:"The AV we believe is the grand bulwark of Protestantism; the safeguard of the Gospel and the treasure of the Church, and we should be traitors, in every sense of the word, if we consented in giving it up to be rifled by Puseyites, consealed Papist, German Neologians, Infidel Divines, Arminians, Socinians, and the whole tribe of the enemies of God and Godliness. To alter our Bible [AV] would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the word of God. There would be two Bibles spread through out the land and what CONFUSION this would create in almost every place."

KJVonlyism preached by a Baptist in 1680:"A university man met Bunyan on a road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan,’ how dare you preach when you don’t have the original scriptures?' "Do you have them, the copies written by the Apostles and Prophets?" asked Bunyan,’ No' replied the scholar,’ But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.' "And I" replied Bunyan "believe the English Bible [the AV] to be a true copy too."(Burgess, McCreary, John Bunyan, the immortal dreamer, Anderson, Indiana: 1928 Gospel Trumpet Co., p.38)


So, as we can see here from these examples that what some call KJVonlyism, turns out to be what is called being a Bible believer. There is nothing "new" about it.

None of those quotes are about KJV-onlyism. None of those quotes say the KJV *exclusively* is the Bible. It is possible (and easy) to believe the KJV is the Bible without being KJV-only.

 

[LarryN]

AV Defender wrote:

"KJVonlyism preached by a Baptist in 1680:"A university man met Bunyan on a road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan,’ how dare you preach when you don’t have the original scriptures?' "Do you have them, the copies written by the Apostles and Prophets?" asked Bunyan,’ No' replied the scholar,’ But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.' "And I" replied Bunyan "believe the English Bible [the AV] to be a true copy too."(Burgess, McCreary, John Bunyan, the immortal dreamer, Anderson, Indiana: 1928 Gospel Trumpet Co., p.38)"

--------------------------------------------------

It's too bad that AV Defender's insertion of the AV into the text above isn't true. John Bunyon used the Geneva Bible; it's fair to say he nearly despised the KJV. To him, the KJV representated the hated king who persecuted Baptists. Here's a short excerpt of a history of the Geneva Bible:


"The Geneva Bible is a critical, yet almost completely forgotten part of the Protestant Reformation. Driven out of England by the persecutions of Bloody Mary, several future leaders of the Reformation came to Geneva to create a pure and accurate translation of the Holy Writ. Concerned about the influence that the Catholic Church had on the existing translations of the Bible from the Latin, these men turned to the original Hebrew and Greek texts to produce the Geneva Bible. This made the Geneva Bible the first complete Bible to be translated into English from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
The creation of the Geneva Bible was a substantial undertaking. Its authors spent over two years, working diligently day and night by candlelight, to finish the translation and the commentaries. The entire project was funded by the exiled English congregation in Geneva, making the translation a work supported by the people and not by an authoritarian church or monarch.
All the marginal commentaries were finished by 1599, making the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible the most complete study aide for Biblical scholars and students. This editon does contain the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha’s notes are minimal or absent in other editions. Additional highlights of this edition include maps of the Exodus route and Joshua’s distribution of land, a name and subject index, and Psalms sung by the English congregation in Geneva.
The greatest distinction of the Geneva Bible, however, is the extensive collection of marginal notes that it contains. Prominent Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures. The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself, and they are justifiably considered the most complete source of Protestant religious thought available.
Owing to the marginal notes and the superior quality of the translation, the Geneva Bible became the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries. It was continually printed from 1560 to 1644 in over 200 different editions. It was the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers, thinkers, and historical figures of the Reformation era. William Shakespeare’s plays and the writings of John Milton and John Bunyan were clearly influenced by the Geneva Bible. Oliver Cromwell issued a pamphlet containing excerpts from the Geneva Bible to his troops during the English Civil War. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower they took with them exclusively the Geneva Bible.
The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible enraged the Catholic Church, since the notes deemed the act of confession to men – the Catholic Bishops – as unjustified by Holy Script. Man should confess to God only; man’s private life was man’s private life. The notes also infuriated King James, since they allowed disobedience to tyrannical kings. King James went so far as to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony. He then proceeded to make his own version of the Bible, but without the marginal notes that had so disturbed him. Consequently, during King James’s reign, and into the reign of Charles I, the Geneva Bible was gradually replaced by the King James Bible."

 

[Dr. Bob]

How many of the religious dissenters who founded America (we call them Pilgrims) used the AV1611?

This was a decade after its first publication and nearly as long after its first revision.

What Bible was "God's Word in English in 1620" in the New World?

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
How many of the religious dissenters who founded America (we call them Pilgrims) used the AV1611?

This was a decade after its first publication and nearly as long after its first revision.

What Bible was "God's Word in English in 1620" in the New World?

The Pilgrims rejected the KJV and set sail toward their new home with only Geneva Bibles onboard.

 

[Dr. Bob]

WHAT? Rejected the "pure" Word of God and opted for that evil sham Geneva Bible? Think I shall never again celebrate Thanksgiving and honor those Pilgrim hereticks!

Of course, to them, the AV was a "modern version", revising the accepted and beloved English Bible by which they had been saved. Anyone being saved by using a "modern version" is probably not even born again!

[Do we have a dripping sarcasm icon? The rolleyes just doesn't do this justice.]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dr Bob: "[Do we have a dripping sarcasm icon?
The rolleyes just doesn't do this justice.]"

Try the UBB Code [sarcasm level=x],
be sure to use the end sarcasm indicator:
[/sarcasm].
In this context, x= lite, medium,
heavy, dripping, or US (Ultimate Sarcasm

)

Examples

[sarcasm level=medium] Dr Bob's bowtie looks good.[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm level= dripping] Dr Bob's bowtie is fantastic![/sarcasm]

BryanT: "It is possible (and easy) to believe the KJV
is the Bible without being KJV-only. "

Amen, Brother BryanT -- Preach it!

Of my TOP TEN BIBLES (the ones i keep on my computer
desk) -- 3 are King James Version!

When i was on a Bible Chapter memorization jag in the early
1980s it was the KJV that i was memorizing.

 

[Dr. Bob]

[sarcasm level= dripping] Appreciate your help with the icons, Ed.[/sarcasm]

 

[robycop3]

You're welcome, Ed.

The "history" I posted is COLD, HARD FACT. It may be freely researched by anyone for veracity. I did so, in the days before the Internet, and, believe me, it was tedious, as I had to do it all in the public library. But eventually, I was able to read Ben Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,J.J.Ray's God Wrote only one Bible, Dr. D.O.Fuller's Which Bible?, Dean Burgon's Revision Revised, & Causes of Corruption in the New Testament Text as well as Bible Babel, Christian?s Handbook Of Biblical Scholarship, & Christian?s Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence by Dr. Peter Ruckman, New Age Bible Versions & Blind Guides by Gail Riplinger, and a host of other articles & studies by both Onlyists and anti-Onlyismists. I WAS AFTER THE TRUTH! After reading each of these books I studied to see which of their assertions was true & what wasn't. What I saw was a lot of fact-distorting by the Onlyists. For example, they frequently bring up Dean Burgon in their attempts to find a reputable scholar of the past who supported their views, but they conveniently skip over Burgon's statements that the Textus Receptus was in need of a major overhaul. And I saw a complete lack of proof for the VERACITY of the Onlyist doctrines. All the pro-Onlyism books I named above are filled with errors, with the works of Ray and Fuller copying almose every error first written by Wilkinson, and Riplinger, Ruckman, Watkins, and several others both mimicking those who'd gone before, while adding new garbage of their own. I say GARBAGE because almost all their new stuff is completely wrong, and is grievous error at best if not outright LIES. Believe me, I DID THE RESEARCH to see if their stuff was wrong or right.

I just didn't pull my anti-Onlyismist stance out of the air. It came from several years of prayerful study. Now, anyone else can do the very same thing I did, MUCH easier thanx to GOD & the Internet. I hope Tiny Tim's group does this research for themselves. I would recommend they do it in a public library that has a PC, since many of the sources that authoritatively verify or debunk many of the assertions found in the better-known books aren't available online, but ARE named on the net.

 

[Cope]

I am not as hung-up on Ps. 12:6-7 as most KJV supporters. For the sake of argument, suppose that Ps. 12:6-7 does indeed refer to God's people, rather than God's word. How does God preserve his people?

"Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me." Ps. 40:11

God's lovingkindess and *truth* preserve his people, his word is his truth. Is a promise to preserve his people therefore a promise to preserve his word?

I don't mean that this proves that the KJV is the word of God, or that it shuts the door on the "them = people" argument for Ps. 12:6-7...but it is something to think about.

 

[HankD]

I don't mean that this proves that the KJV is the word of God, or that it shuts the door on the "them = people" argument for Ps. 12:6-7...but it is something to think about.

No one has said that the KJV is not the Word of God. It is the Word of God by derivation based upon the copies of the inspired text.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Cope:
I am not as hung-up on Ps. 12:6-7 as most KJV supporters. For the sake of argument, suppose that Ps. 12:6-7 does indeed refer to God's people, rather than God's word. How does God preserve his people?

"Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me." Ps. 40:11

God's lovingkindess and *truth* preserve his people, his word is his truth. Is a promise to preserve his people therefore a promise to preserve his word?

I don't mean that this proves that the KJV is the word of God, or that it shuts the door on the "them = people" argument for Ps. 12:6-7...but it is something to think about.

I think the "people-words" Ps. 12:6-7 argument is meaningless here, as all Baptists believe God has preserved His word. It's just another Onlyist ploy they use to cover the fact that they have no real evidence supporting their doctrine.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Strong pseudo-ifb leaders like Jack Hyles MOCKED the only sect/position in 1970. I heard him speak and others can verify this was his and later Hyles-Anderson College position.

But by 1980 he was saying that if a person was saved using any other translation, he was not truly saved. Again, I will let others verify this as a historic statement.

And sycophants, cronies, and the ilk were quick to jump on the bandwagon and make it a NEW "fundamental of the faith". And thus the sect took impetus and now, it is estimated, has corrupted 20-25% of historic fundamentalism.

Dr. Bob, I might suggest that IFBs who believe their leaders have all been KJVOs, to read a bio of one of their greatest leaders, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters.(1900-1996) He wrote:

"Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best
English Version of the original languages which places us in a
position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King
James of 1611 for demerits."

"We know of no Fundamentalists...that claim the King James as the
best translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all
claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation."
Richard V. Clearwaters, THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST COMPROMISE
(Minneapolis: Central Seminary Press, n.d.), pp. 192, 199.

 

[skanwmatos]

But Richard Clearwaters always, without exception, preached from the KJV. He may have thought the ASV was the "rock of biblical honesty" but he still preached and taught from his KJV.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
But Richard Clearwaters always, without exception, preached from the KJV. He may have thought the ASV was the "rock of biblical honesty" but he still preached and taught from his KJV.

I personally knew Doc C. from about 1974-1982. It's true he always preached from the KJV; but at the same time the Seminary he headed (Central Seminary, Minneapolis) used the ASV (and later the NASV) in many (if not most) classes. He stuck by the KJV in the pulpit because it was the familiar version to most of the people in the pews at the time.

His successors at Fourth Baptist haven't used the KJV only in the pulpit. Dr. Ernest Pickering was known to quote from the NIV from the pulpit from time to time, and Dr. Douglas McLachlan, the present pastor, preachs from the NKJV, which is the church's pew Bible.

The Seminary is actively anti-KJVO (see Kevin Bauder's recent book "One Bible Only"? as an example), and uses the UBS4th edition in Greek (a non-TR text).

 

[LarryN]

"We know of no Fundamentalists...that claim the King James as the
best translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all
claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation."
Richard V. Clearwaters, THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST COMPROMISE
(Minneapolis: Central Seminary Press, n.d.), pp. 192, 199.

The book quoted from is undated, but it may be of interest to note that he wrote these words circa 1973. How do I know this to be true? Toward the back/end of the book he mentions that Fourth Baptist's (the church in Mpls. he pastored for 42 years) new 2,400 seat auditorium was currently under construction and would be finished the following year. That auditorium opened in 1974.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
But Richard Clearwaters always, without exception, preached from the KJV. He may have thought the ASV was the "rock of biblical honesty" but he still preached and taught from his KJV.

Far as that goes, I use the KJV when it best serves what I'm doing, such as evangelizing an elderly person. (I'm not a preacher, except in the sense that Jesus tells us to spread the Gospel.) I will use whatever version seems necessary for the job at hand, or whichever one the Holy Spirit says to use at the time.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Doc Clearwaters was my pastor from 57-68. He always used the ASV1901 for teaching and even in the pulpit he would continually teach/explain "better choices" of word meaning than the archaic KJV.

Doc was one tough fundamentalist and took to "truck" from anyone. He taught me that a "bloody sword is a badge of honor".

Of course, it may be your brother's blood, but hey, blood is blood.

(This might explain why I'm so meek and not outspoken here on the BB)