How did the Modern KJVO Movement Get Started?

[paidagogos]

When did the so-called KJVO Movement begin? No one knows or can define since it was not spawned by the brainstorm of one person, event, or publication as some aver. It was a grassroots movement grown up in the believing church in response to academia's attack on the Scriptures. It's too spontaneous to be nailed down to one event. It just doesn't fit into your historiography!

It was the response of Bible-believing churches guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very analogous to the canonization of Scripture which I contend was NOT decided by councils. It was what grew out of the Holy Spirit’s leading of Bible-believing Christians into a consensus. It really doesn’t matter when it originated since its antiquity has nothing to do with its veracity. To sum up my argument, this question is irrelevant, immaterial, and inane. Nuff said.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
When did the so-called KJVO Movement begin? No one knows or can define since it was not spawned by the brainstorm of one person, event, or publication as some aver. It was a grassroots movement grown up in the believing church in response to academia's attack on the Scriptures. It's too spontaneous to be nailed down to one event. It just doesn't fit into your historiography!

It was the response of Bible-believing churches guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very analogous to the canonization of Scripture which I contend was NOT decided by councils. It was what grew out of the Holy Spirit’s leading of Bible-believing Christians into a consensus. It really doesn’t matter when it originated since its antiquity has nothing to do with its veracity. To sum up my argument, this question is irrelevant, immaterial, and inane. Nuff said.

Dear Paid, to claim that the Holy Spirit guided the KJVO:kjbo movement is to claim for that same movement something not specifically declared in Scriptures; i.e How can the Holy Spirit guide a man made myth? The KJVO:kjbo myth is based on conjecture (name ONE VERSE that declares the AV to be the only valid BV for English speaking people). You simply can not. I believe the Bible is preserved, as it claims, but as I've said before, when someone believes that God has only "preserved" His Word in English in the KJV:kjb, whereby you can "correct" the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic (see silly posts by Precepts, especially in thread entitled "Hebrews 10:23")then you've moved beyond preservation to pickling God's Word.

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
When did the so-called KJVO Movement begin? No one knows or can define since it was not spawned by the brainstorm of one person, event, or publication as some aver. It was a grassroots movement grown up in the believing church in response to academia's attack on the Scriptures. It's too spontaneous to be nailed down to one event. It just doesn't fit into your historiography!

It was the response of Bible-believing churches guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very analogous to the canonization of Scripture which I contend was NOT decided by councils. It was what grew out of the Holy Spirit?s leading of Bible-believing Christians into a consensus. It really doesn?t matter when it originated since its antiquity has nothing to do with its veracity. To sum up my argument, this question is irrelevant, immaterial, and inane. Nuff said.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
When did the so-called KJVO Movement begin? No one knows or can define since it was not spawned by the brainstorm of one person, event, or publication as some aver. It was a grassroots movement grown up in the believing church in response to academia's attack on the Scriptures. It's too spontaneous to be nailed down to one event. It just doesn't fit into your historiography!

It was the response of Bible-believing churches guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very analogous to the canonization of Scripture which I contend was NOT decided by councils. It was what grew out of the Holy Spirit?s leading of Bible-believing Christians into a consensus. It really doesn?t matter when it originated since its antiquity has nothing to do with its veracity. To sum up my argument, this question is irrelevant, immaterial, and inane. Nuff said.

AMEN!!!!!!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Z-WOMEN! i.e.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, the movement grew as more new BVs were published. But the theory was as empty then as it is now, completely unsupported by Scripture, devoid of any sustaining evidence.

Actually, Paid, the question is QUITE relevant. I, for one, wanted to know where such a patently-false doctrine came from, and how it invaded Christianity so easily. It didn't surprise me to find that the "daddy" of the MODERN KJVO myth was a 7th Day Adventist. It wouldn't have surprised me if that "daddy" had been a LDS or JW, since the KJVO myth is so obviously false.

Now, while Wilkinson didn't actively pursue the KJVO myth, his book served as the basis for the writings of later authors who DID actively support this notion, and together with those who believed the bunk they wrote, unknowingly founded the modern monster that's still around today.

Very few KJVO writings are entirely free of Wilkinson's stuff. If more KJVO Christians would only investigate for themselves the lack of supporting evidence for the KJVO myth, and the SOURCE of the modern doctrine, they'd drop it like a bad habit.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
When did the so-called KJVO Movement begin? No one knows or can define since it was not spawned by the brainstorm of one person, event, or publication as some aver. It was a grassroots movement grown up in the believing church in response to academia's attack on the Scriptures. It's too spontaneous to be nailed down to one event. It just doesn't fit into your historiography!

It was the response of Bible-believing churches guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very analogous to the canonization of Scripture which I contend was NOT decided by councils. It was what grew out of the Holy Spirit’s leading of Bible-believing Christians into a consensus. It really doesn’t matter when it originated since its antiquity has nothing to do with its veracity. To sum up my argument, this question is irrelevant, immaterial, and inane. Nuff said.

Nuff said? Are you kidding???
Who was it in "academia" that led the "attack on the Scriptures?" That is a wildly egregious charge. There is a HUGE difference between attacking the King James Version and attacking KJV-Onlyism.

Since you have claimed "veracity," then perhaps you could provide us with the Scriptural Proof for the complete and total rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word. My Geneva Bible alone completely shoots down your KJV-Onlyism.

This should not be such a daunting task if your claim of "veracity" is accurate.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
It is the International Copyright Laws that preclude the Crown Patent being enforced internationally. The Crown Patent does not meet the criteria established by the International Commission on Copyrights.

So, to a self-professed believer in the "divine right of kings," wouldn't this be illegal?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
So, to a self-professed believer in the "divine right of kings," wouldn't this be illegal?

Who believes in the "divine right of kings?" I thought that was settled when Charles I was beheaded? And, if a person is not British, and not living in the British Empire, why should their laws apply?

 

[Craigbythesea]

I own both editions and the information is contained in the "PREFATORY NOTE" starting on page 3.

Dear brother Skanwmatos,

RE: "Revised English Version" by the American Baptist Publication Society in 1865, 1867

This is a Bible that I am unfamiliar with and I am looking for detailed factual information about it, such as the name of the original publisher and the first publication date, revision dates, the full names of the people involved, etc. You wrote that you own "both editions." Can you tell me precisely which two editions you own? Would you be interested in selling them to me? If hot, do you know where I can buy copies of this Bible?
What is the exact name of it on the title page?

Can any one else help me to secure this information or copies of the Bible?

 

[skanwmatos]

I was typing from memory and turned the names/dates around.

The 1865 American Bible Union New Testament is also called the "Common English New Testament." It is the work of Hackett, Kendrick, and Conant. It was reprinted in 1955 by Goodpasture.

I have no idea where you might find one. I got mine from the library of Dr. Otto Reese, long time President of Linda Vista Baptist Bible College and Seminary (now Southern California Bible College and Seminary). When he died in 1996 they auctioned off his library. I got several dozen excellent old bibles and other books.

And, no, you can't buy it!

The other is the American Bible Union Improved Edition (Edition With Baptize) by Hovey, Broadus, and Weston. It was published in 1891. I also got this one from the auction of Dr. Reese's library. And, no, you can't buy this one either!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Growth - not origin - of the modern KJVO sect (mostly among fundamental baptists) has occured for various reasons:

1. Lack of scholarship. Pastors were woefully uneducated or undereducated. If I can't understand it in English . . . Whole schools taught that you did not have to study Greek, Hebrew, etc, just the English Bible.

2. Desire for a perfect standard. People needed to hold in their hand something that was 100% authoritative, unquestioned, perfect, from spelling to dress code.

3. Peer pressure. Groups of pastors and churches picked up this unbiblical (remember, not ONE verse of scripture to support it) teaching. They would not support schools, conferences, publications, etc that did not embrace their same "onlyism".

Biggest example is Jack Hyles, who publically ridiculed and scoffed at KJVO in the 70's. But the loss of students to his college and loss of support at Sword Conferences and his pastor's conference, by 1980 he was avowing that "if you were not saved using a KJV, you are not really saved."

4. Faulty scholarship. Women teachers like Riplinger, video tapes by Johnson at PCC, and sect leaders like Ruckman do a great disservice to the believers by spewing out tons of literature that is erroneous and full of half-truths.

Add Chick "tracts" for a really good doctrinal source and you are ripe for error.

5. Money, power, prestige and arrogance. All of the above lead to embracing the KJVO movement. For your church or school, in the conferences or colleges, the bottom line is . . the bottom line.

It is hard for me NOT to look at motives (an action I do NOT want to do; I'd rather condemn the act and leave judging the individual up to God). But the motives surface.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Craigbythesea]

skanwmantos,

Thank you so very much for this information. It sounds as though you are a serious student of the Bible. I should like to get to know you better.

P.S. I don't sell my books either.

Many of them are virtually irreplacable and go all the way back to 1607.

 

[robycop3]

Dr. Bob, I was told by a polite emailer who wishes to remain anonymous that the growth of KJVO was fueled by the proliferation of corrupt BVS over the last roughly 35 years or so. To which I replied that althere there ARE some admittedly-bogus BVs out there, there are quite a few valid ones also, and the fact that they aren't the KJV does NOT render them not valid.

I reckon the NIV is the fave Onlyist target because of its popularity, followed by the NKJV. The KJVOs HAVE come up with a few new arguments since the advent of modern onlyism, but many of them are version-specific and quite silly such as the just-discussed Luke 2:43 thingy and the Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer vs morning star stuff. But they're all built upon the original Onlyist sack of potatoes brought by Wilkinson & filled further by Ray and Fuller.

Your mention of many Fundies being KJVO reminds me that you were a student of Dr. Richard Clearwaters, the Fundies' Fundamentalist. I know he was NOT KJVO, but perhaps you have mucho more info on his views than I do. My info comes from a local senior citizen who knew him a little bit, and he says that if it weren't for Dr. Clearwaters, there'd be no Fundamentalist movement today.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Your mention of many Fundies being KJVO reminds me that you were a student of Dr. Richard Clearwaters, the Fundies' Fundamentalist. I know he was NOT KJVO, but perhaps you have mucho more info on his views than I do. My info comes from a local senior citizen who knew him a little bit, and he says that if it weren't for Dr. Clearwaters, there'd be no Fundamentalist movement today.

He was my pastor and teacher from 1957-68. His preaching led to my conversion and I was baptized by Doc on Easter Sunday, 1958. I don't know everything about him, but do know a lot of his views.

He was a champion of fundamentalism, taking over for the fallen W.B.Riley who had led the forces in the previous generation. When Riley's schools were taken over by young Billy Graham, and soon closed, Doc started Central Baptist Seminary in our church and then Pillsbury Baptist College (where I attended and later taught).

Doc used and advocated the original languages more than any preacher I knew. He taught from the ASV1901 because it is so much closer to a formal translation of Greek verbs, etc, than the AV1611.

A few people in the pre-1970 era would say the KJV was the only inspired translation but they were a tiny tiny figment (er, fragment) of true fundamentalism. It was just not an issue. It only became one later as, like a cancer, KJVonly sect infiltrated fundamentalism.

Doc used a Scofield (old, KJV1769Oxford) just like I still do now. He preached from it and advocated everyone get one as the "Best" study bible. Church bookstore bought them in cases and sold them at cost!

Historic Independent Baptist Fundamentalism NEVER NEVER NEVER, can I repeat NEVER believed anything of the KJVonly myth. The doctrinal statement of Doc, of Fourth Baptist (his church), of Central Baptist Seminary, of Pillsbury Baptist College have not changed one iota.

No new "doctrine" of reinspiration or preservation of an English translation. That would be anathema to him as it is to all fundamentalists today.

 

[Frogman]

Ok, I haven't read all the posts here. I also want to say up front that I have always been KJV and would not be hurt if you called me KJVO.

But I can see one thing for certain, IF I believe God will and has preserved his word, why would he not preserve it as well in any other?

Now, this aside, why call KJVO a monster? Why is it so bad to trust the KJV? If in fact some of the newer versions do leave things out, what are these omissions based on? If they are true omissions, then how are these preserved as the word of God?

Maybe that is enough questions for now. I do want to say however that I have always wanted to be able to read the original languages and that this would be the best way to gain an understanding of scripture as far as the grammar etc is concerned.

But I have never had time to devote myself to study these languages as would be required by myself in order to accomplish this. And I believe too that this accomplishment would require a baptism (immersion for all you non-landmarkers) into that language.

Where can I go to be baptized into these original languages?

Bro. Dallas making light of a serious topic, at least to me and one I don't fully understand. Whew, the more I think I have learned the more I realize I don't know anything.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Frogman: go read this (be sure to come back
here):
Types of KJVO

According to that schema I'm a KJVO Preferred.
Which are you? Like you have have little
if any training in Hebrew or Greek. I depend
upon the English. I find using various
KJVs helps me understand the scripture.
I find using various versions other than
the KJVs helps me understand the scripture
better. My "best buy" Bible is the
TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE, a four barrelled
canon

TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE contains:

1. New International Version (NIV)
2. King James Version, 1873 edition (KJV1873)
---with original margine notes
3. New Living Translation (NLT)
4. New American Standard Bible (NASB).

 

[Frogman]

I read that last night after posting in the thread on why the KJVO spread among fundamentalists, then I had to go back and make my confession, as you will see in the same post.

I don't know enough overall about the issue to say I am anything but KJV preferred. I do believe it is the preserved word of God, but I realize also that a translation into a Sino-Tibetan language like Dzhonka of Bhutan would also be preserved in like manner and by the same power, otherwise I see a necessary requirement that all nations speak and read the King's English before being able to read or hear the Gospel.

I will try to add this to my study and see but as for now, I am satisfied to be thought to be KJVO among English speaking peoples and preferred among any other nationality.

You know, most nations, even Bhutan teach English for use in business and are sending their youth to American universities for civil engineering degrees. Keep an eye on Bhutan, a closed Buddist nation with a Constitutional Monarchy supporting the religions of Budda and Hinduism. These youth coming to America are learning more than civil engineering and they are going back home to live and work and improve their nation.

Well, enough of that. As I said, I would not be offended at being called KJVO, nor identified as simply preferred.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[robycop3]

Frogman:But I can see one thing for certain, IF I believe God will and has preserved his word, why would he not preserve it as well in any other?

I believe He HAS done just that! Why? There are no two English BVs alike, even those that predate the AV. After all, there are no two Baptist preachers alike, although they believe the same basic doctrines.

Now, this aside, why call KJVO a monster?
Because it's grown so large over the last few years. And it's a false doctrine, teaching that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. This idea totally lacks any SCRIPTURAL support, and is certainly not supported by the history of the Bible in English, either.


Why is it so bad to trust the KJV?
It isn't.


If in fact some of the newer versions do leave things out, what are these omissions based on?
On the sources they're translated from.


If they are true omissions, then how are these preserved as the word of God?
No one can prove that the material they call omissions aren't really ADDITIONS in some mss, made by a well-meaning copyist. Plus, we must apply the fact that the various mss were written by different people in various times, places, and conditions. This is easily seen within the Gospels. Mark has both thieves crucified with Jesus reviling Him, while Luke has one thief asking Jesus to remember him. Does this mean that one account is wrong? Newp! It means that Mark and Luke were different people, and that Mark may not have witnessed as many of the events during the crucifixion as Luke did, for whatever reason.

Just remember that, while the KJV is an excellent version, it's not the ONLY excellent version.

BTW, were you a Navy UDT, thus, a "frogman"?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Who believes in the "divine right of kings?" I thought that was settled when Charles I was beheaded? And, if a person is not British, and not living in the British Empire, why should their laws apply?

Well, actually: YOU professed to believe this, citing the verse containing "by me kings reign."

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
When did the so-called KJVO Movement begin? No one knows or can define since it was not spawned by the brainstorm of one person, event, or publication as some aver. It was a grassroots movement grown up in the believing church in response to academia's attack on the Scriptures. It's too spontaneous to be nailed down to one event. It just doesn't fit into your historiography!

It was the response of Bible-believing churches guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is very analogous to the canonization of Scripture which I contend was NOT decided by councils. It was what grew out of the Holy Spirit’s leading of Bible-believing Christians into a consensus. It really doesn’t matter when it originated since its antiquity has nothing to do with its veracity. To sum up my argument, this question is irrelevant, immaterial, and inane. Nuff said.

Dear Paid, to claim that the Holy Spirit guided the KJVO:kjbo movement is to claim for that same movement something not specifically declared in Scriptures; i.e How can the Holy Spirit guide a man made myth? The KJVO:kjbo myth is based on conjecture (name ONE VERSE that declares the AV to be the only valid BV for English speaking people). You simply can not. I believe the Bible is preserved, as it claims, but as I've said before, when someone believes that God has only "preserved" His Word in English in the KJV:kjb, whereby you can "correct" the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic (see silly posts by Precepts, especially in thread entitled "Hebrews 10:23")then you've moved beyond preservation to pickling God's Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Orvie, hey! Why don’t you go to your local public library and find some books on debate and logic. See if you can find something called “begging the question.” Your post is a perfect example. You are making and arguing from unwarranted assumptions. You’re already neck-deep in quicksand. Since you believe this claptrap, you probably think it is rational and logical, but it ain’t. Try again!