How did the Modern KJVO Movement Get Started?

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Paid-"Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.

Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander."
Orvie-"Here's one for ya, which shows that God has preserved His Word in the MV's, including in 1611-present the KJV: 'So likewise ye,except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.' 1 Cor 14:9 KJV1769 What part of words easy to be understood do you not understand?

Good reply but it opens up a can of worms. Does it follow that paraphrases are even better because they are even more easily understood? How does this square with plenary verbal inspiration? This is inferential and one must be well aware where inferences may lead. This could be used in argument for thought inspiration as opposed to plenary verbal and result in a loose handling of Scripture. Think it through. After all, this is exactly how we got all this extreme KJVO craziness as expressed by the nut cases such as Ruckman & company.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The premise is made over and over again - the KJV (whatever revision, they are all different and I don't know which was inspired) is the ONLY perfect, correct, inerrant, infallible translation of the Word of God in English.

For discussion/debate, that premise must be proven and supported. When that is done then it can be refuted.

Not asking for a thing except ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE/PROOF.

Since none has EVER been given, the premise is declared a myth, accepted by faith in a Kirkegaardian leap, and its adherents in the only sect held up for public ridicule and rebuke.

Titus 1:13 This witnesse is true: wherefore rebuke them sharpely, that they may be sound in the faith; not giuing heede to Iewish fables, and commandements of men that turne from the trueth.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself.

This is totally nonsensical and unsurprisingly simplistic. It is not up to me to disprove a statement that you have completely failed to prove. You made the charge, now kindly provide ONE Scriptural Passage that supports your belief in the total rejection of all other Dnglish translations of God's Holy Word.

First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter.

Again: it is not up to me to disprove the contention that you have completely failed to prove. Stop avoiding the question.

Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.

Again, stop avoiding the question. Everyone on this list knows that I have never even made one single reference to this nonsense you have offered.

This is yet another exchange where you have completely failed to provide any Biblical Support for the claims that YOU have made. Let me say that again: the claims that YOU have made. It's time to step up to the plate and support your contention.

Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

It is ironic that you make this statement, as you have yet to provide any meat in your argument. Regardless of gender, your argument is nothing but sauce thus far.

 

[Trotter]

Paidagogos,

Reading over your posts on this thread, I just have to ask you a question: Are you playing the Devil's Advocate?

Thus far I have seen you argue on the premise, but I have not seen you post any of the tripe that normally accompanies those who spout the KJVO nonsense. This tells me that many here may be jumping the gun on this one.

If you are KJVO, why?

As to Scriptural proof (for the KJV or MV's), there is none (for either side). Everyone can yell and demand biblical backing all day, but there is not any to back up either side.

Personally, I like the KJV. But I do not agree with the idea that the KJV is the one and only English Bible, or that the translators of the KJV were inspired themselves, or that the KJV corrects the original languages and/or manuscripts. The KJV is a translation, just like the ASB, NIV, RSV, NKJV, NASB. And it, just like any other translation, will have its own slant as to the meaning of the words of the original languages. And, just like any other translation, the KJV is limited by the manuscripts that the translators had to work with, and the expertise of the translators themselves.

So, what is your position? That is, if you care to let us know. If not, that is your choice. But I like to know where people stand before I draw my conclusions.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Paidagogos,

Reading over your posts on this thread, I just have to ask you a question: Are you playing the Devil's Advocate?

Thus far I have seen you argue on the premise, but I have not seen you post any of the tripe that normally accompanies those who spout the KJVO nonsense. This tells me that many here may be jumping the gun on this one.

If you are KJVO, why?

As to Scriptural proof (for the KJV or MV's), there is none (for either side). Everyone can yell and demand biblical backing all day, but there is not any to back up either side.

Personally, I like the KJV. But I do not agree with the idea that the KJV is the one and only English Bible, or that the translators of the KJV were inspired themselves, or that the KJV corrects the original languages and/or manuscripts. The KJV is a translation, just like the ASB, NIV, RSV, NKJV, NASB. And it, just like any other translation, will have its own slant as to the meaning of the words of the original languages. And, just like any other translation, the KJV is limited by the manuscripts that the translators had to work with, and the expertise of the translators themselves.

So, what is your position? That is, if you care to let us know. If not, that is your choice. But I like to know where people stand before I draw my conclusions.

In Christ,
Trotter

Trotter,

Kudos! You're quite perceptive and close to the truth here.

Yes, now that you have called me, I am obligated to show my cards. I cannot post my position in the 15 minutes before church begins but I will do so shortly.

Not only are you perceptive but you appear rational, open-minded, and fair. It is refreshing to read such a clear and reasonable post.

I am totally amazed that the other posters couldn't see this, although,I've had my fun toying with them. I certainly left enough clues.

Thanks for your post.

In Christ,
Paidagogos

 

[robycop3]

Good luck, fellows, in trying to get a KJVO to provide just one scintilla of sustenance for their KJVO myth. I've been trying since long before the inet came about. They talk a good fight, but under the lights they sorta melt away.

They often reply with, "Where's your Scriptural support for MVs?" The answer is within Scripture itself. Jesus and the Apostles often quoted the OT, and in their own language.

The burden of proof lies with the Onlyists. It's THEY who've invented a whole new doctrine about God's word, a doctrine we reject due to complete lack of evidence for its veracity. So far, the Onlyists have failed to do anything to rectify that situation, so their doctrine remains a man-made myth. When they try to add a little erudition to the mix, they're merely trying to build a structure from the roof down, WITHOUT FIRST LAYING THE FOUNDATION. You've seeen right here in this forum that they cannot tell us by whose authority they hold this myth and tell us WE should, nor can they provide one passage of Scripture that even suggests that Onlyism(any one version, not just the KJV)is legitimate.

Why any devout, God-fearing Baptist would subscribe to such codwallop is beyond me, but we have the proof right in front of us that they DO. I consider it my Christian duty to fight against this and other false doctrines with two goals in mind-to show those who might actually BELIEVE this stuff that it's wrong, and to "educate" the newer Christians about the falsehood of these doctrines so they avoid them.(Just as many of the rioters of the '60s didn't give a hoot about the cause being espoused by the core agitators, I don't believe many of those who claim to be KJVO actually believe it. They just come along for the ride, or for the sake of argument.)

This is why I keep harping about the BASICS that would provide a foundation for KJVO. It's advocates cannot provide any basis for why anyone should be KJVO, themselves included, and, far as I'm concerned, all they've done is lay an elaborate wiring system without providing a fusebox to supply any POWER to it. Therefore, it's a dead, inert thing.

This has been the case from the beginning of the current myth. It's ALWAYS been dead in the water. And while the modern Onlyists have attempted CPR on their myth, it's like trying to revive a doorknob. It was stillborn, and it isn't gonna live. Might as well bury it now.

 

[Jim Ward]

Just a reminder Cranston, we are STILL waiting for all the Scriptural commands that tells us to use the modern versions.


Heck for that matter, where is the Scriptural proof that we are to have a Bible in the English language?

You all "act" so gung-ho on Scriptural support that you miss by thousands of miles that your view has ZERO Scriptural support, thus fully proving to one and all the total, complete and blatant hypocrisy of the mv cult.

Time to hold yourself and your fellow cultists to your own standards, or be man enough to admit the mvism is a man made myth that is based on the traditions and opinions and desires of carnal man and has not a shred of Godliness in it.


In other words, it's time for y'all to put up or finally shut up.


Jim

 

[Dr. Bob]

In other words Jim has no answer. We knew that.

We believe God gave His Word and that we have many good English translations (and a few bad ones) of that Word. Praise His name!

Sad that some opt to believe a myth that God did NOT give His Word in English until 1611 and then can't even tell us WHAT version of that AV1611 is the "only" inspired one.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:

Just a reminder Cranston, we are STILL waiting for all the Scriptural commands that tells us to use the modern versions.

First, there are none. Second, we haven't asked the KJVOs for any COMMANDS; we've asked them for scriptural EVIDENCE. There's PLENTY of evidence for God's providing His word in His audience's own language, such as His causing all the people present at the first pentecost to each hear the apostles' preaching in his/her own language.

What if God had written the 10 commandments in English? Would the Hebrews have understood them?


Heck for that matter, where is the Scriptural proof that we are to have a Bible in the English language?

The "Great Commission", where Jesus commands His disciples to take His gospel throughout the world.

English didn't exist while God was first providing His word, but then neither did many of the dialects used by those to whom God caused to hear His word in my paragraph above. And Paul reminds us that if we don't understand the language being used, it's just noise to the listener. Common sense will apply this premise to WRITTEN language; the Arabic alphabet is scrawls to me, same as mine would be to an Arab. And if the words written in my alphabet are from another language I don't know, they'll be scrawls to me also.

If you dont't believe God intended for His word to be in English, you better toss your KJV.

You all "act" so gung-ho on Scriptural support that you miss by thousands of miles that your view has ZERO Scriptural support, thus fully proving to one and all the total, complete and blatant hypocrisy of the mv cult.

Jim, I reminded you before to confine your reverses to either your vehicle or your football team. It won't work here. WE did NOT propose a new theory concerning Scripture; the ONLYISTS did that, and have utterly failed to prove it. Your "reverses" merely tell everyone that you're clueless as to how to sustain the Onlyism myth.

Time to hold yourself and your fellow cultists to your own standards, or be man enough to admit the mvism is a man made myth that is based on the traditions and opinions and desires of carnal man and has not a shred of Godliness in it.

There's no such critter as "mvonlyism". This is YOUR invention, hoping to put some kinda label on us who reject the Onlyism myth for lack of evidence. The simple fact is that we can trace the man-made beginnings of KJVO quite easily, and it's been recently done right here in another thread. There's nothing to suggest "mvism" ever existed; you've merely invented it so as to have a straw man to kick. The AV 1611 was a "mv" at one time, as was every version ever made.


In other words, it's time for y'all to put up or finally shut up.

Jim

Jimmy, JIMMY!

We've been "putting up" ever since this KJVO myth started. It's the KJVOs who've never established any basis of truth for preaching their myth.

We non-Onlyists don't have any new doctrines to prove about Scripture. That's the ONLYISTS' burden, as THEY'RE the ones with a doctrine to prove. All WE do is reject that doctrine for lack of evidence. Your attempt to dodge that fact by trying to invent some "mv" doctrine for us-something we never even dreamed about-just WON'T WORK, Jim. No matter how many wings you put on a hippo, it simply WON'Y FLY.

 

[Trotter]

Cranston,

I love your way with words!

 

[Trotter]

Paidagogos,

Thank you. I try not to come roaring in like a runaway steamroller. I have had to apologize several times for that. I look forward to seeing you opinion in the matter.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by paidagogos:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What do you think that I believe?

Fair enough to get us started, what specifically do you believe?

For a preponderance of reasons, the KJV is the English version to be used by Bible-believing Christians in the English language.</font>[/QUOTE] So why is it you object to being referred to as KJVO?

BTW, I have never seen this "preponderance of reasons" but am willing to consider it at any time.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual dominance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America.

And why was that? It began with its endorsement by the English crown and the CoE's determined and successful effort to make it the only version available. By the time the US won its independence, it was standard... although not by choice but by force. Change is always difficult and Bibles in a relative sense were far more expensive then than now so there was no immediate change.

Claptrap! You have totally misconstrued history. This is sheer nonsense. Your statements are simply not true. What more can be said.</font>[/QUOTE] Well basically you can disprove what I said. It should be easy enough. For instance, you can show that 17th century Baptists endorsed the KJV over the Geneva. You can show that... but here's a help for you:

"However, what finally decided the issue in favor of the King James Bible had little to do with the relative merits of the two translations. After the death of King James, his son Charles I ascended to the throne. Charles appointed William Laud, who had been Bishop of London, to the see of Canterbury. One of Laud's first orders was to forbid the printing of the Geneva Bible in England to assure uniformity of Bibles. At first, this did not cause any difficulty because it was easy to procure copies from overseas. However, Laud issued an edict forbidding the importation of the Geneva Bible because it would cause economic hardship to British printers. The last printing of the Geneva Bible was done in Amsterdam in 1644.

It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. However, there is one further irony that exists. Another name given to the King James Bible is the Authorized Version or "A.V." However, there is no record that any official authorization was ever given to the King James Version."

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html

Here's another:
"In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation. Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling ot it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Was it the power of this cruel High Commission Court that finally forced believers to give up their beloved and popular Geneva Bible?"
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/rick/influence.html

And another:
"1633. Elzevir's 2nd Greek New Testament • William Laud (Romanist) is made Archbishop of Canterbury, begins to persecute Puritans. Forbids importation of the Geneva Bible."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/history2.html

Yet another:
"Why did this Bible need to be smuggled into England? Because in 1615 Archbishop Abbot prohibited the publishing of a Bible without an Apocrypha, and these Bibles, almost without exception, did not include the Apocrypha, although it is listed in the contents. Puritans did not use the Apocrypha. Also in 1637 Archbishop Laud prohibited the publication of the Geneva Bible, by decree of the Star Chamber."
http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/051-132e.htm

BTW, what translation did the American Puritans use?

"For three generations, this Bible held sway in the homes of the English people. While Great Bibles and Bishops' Bibles were read out in the churches, Geneva Bibles were read by the firesides, well before and after the King James Version was issued. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of William Shakespeare, John Milton, John Bunyan, and Oliver Cromwell. This is the version that Pilgrims and Puritans brought with them to America."

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/exhibitb/1.html

So, how many people use Webster’s Bible today?

Few if any... but that wasn't my point.

Did the KJV outsell the other editions?

Yes. Did I ever say otherwise?

Where are all these other editions?

Mostly in libraries I suspect.

Jefferson’s mangled edition is only a footnote to history. ad infinitum

So?

[qb[Again, simply hogwash. It was not the force of government—this is a ridiculous assertion.

[/qb] Hopefully by now you have seen my documentation to the contrary.

The KJV held such sway that it morphed our culture, ideas, and thinking into its form. Read even secular historical sources and you hear the echoes of the KJV.

No more so than another good version would have done... say the Geneva? In fact, the roots of American liberty reach back to the English Civil War and before when the Geneva was the version of the rebel and the KJV was the version of the oppressor.

Considering the modern rapid means of distribution, mass production, etc., the MV’s have fared very poorly against the KJV.

Considering 200+ years of entrenchment... I don't think so.

Furthermore, there is no one MV that has gained ascendancy over its competitors.

Actually the NIV is now the highest seller... much to my chagrin.

New versions are already cutting into their market share.

The NASB gets an unfortunate knock for being too wooden. Many of us who will consider MV's don't like/trust the NIV. Our times are much like the years before the KJV when several versions competed for dominance. However with the breadth of opinion, I doubt one version will gain that kind of dominance in our religiously free society. Maybe when the gov't gets enough control they can authorize another version that doesn't offend our rulers so much.

What in the world does “lower textual criticism” have to do with my statement that you quoted?

Lower textual criticism is the source of the texts used to translate modern versions.

I said that the American values and ideals shaped by the KJV were challenged by the rise of relativism in the 1950’s. It began in the 1950’s (perhaps even the 1940’s) but it was very evident by the 1960’s. It had nothing to do with the rationalistic textual criticism that rose during the last half of the nineteenth century.

You give the KJV way too much credit. The same "values and ideals" are taught in any solid translation.

Irrelevant, immaterial, presumptive, ill-considered and WRONG! you have totally misunderstood and misstated my conclusion and your own conclusion is senseless.

Feel free to illustrate this charge any time... because I really don't think so...

Sir, you would have done better not to even have taken notice and replied.

I am sure that would have been preferrable for you since your rebuttal has been "irrelevant, immaterial, presumptive, ill-considered, and WRONG!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Just a reminder Cranston, we are STILL waiting for all the Scriptural commands that tells us to use the modern versions.


Heck for that matter, where is the Scriptural proof that we are to have a Bible in the English language?

You all "act" so gung-ho on Scriptural support that you miss by thousands of miles that your view has ZERO Scriptural support, thus fully proving to one and all the total, complete and blatant hypocrisy of the mv cult.

Time to hold yourself and your fellow cultists to your own standards, or be man enough to admit the mvism is a man made myth that is based on the traditions and opinions and desires of carnal man and has not a shred of Godliness in it.


In other words, it's time for y'all to put up or finally shut up.


Jim

This is abject fatuity.

Isn’t it interesting that you could not provide ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE to support your contention? Let’s think about that: you are subscribing to a belief that, due to the complete lack of any Scriptural Proof, is UNSCRIPTURAL.

Now, you are charging that it is time for us to “put up or finally shut up.” In other words, we should provide Scriptural Proof to refute the contention that you have utterly and completely failed to prove.

There is no Scriptural Support for the total rejection of all other English translations of God’s Holy Word. I have asked you several times in several threads to prove your claim, and once again you completely failed to demonstrate the validity of your assertion. Now you are asking for someone to prove “mvism,” apparently a term you conjured to make a simplistic attempt to evade your responsibility to provide Scriptural Support for your spurious assertion. There is no such thing as an MV cult, as nobody on this list has mirrored your egregious behavior with respect to a Modern Version, and you know it. As a matter of fact, I use the 1611 Authorised Version. Put another way, I am using the REAL King James Bible.

There is no Scriptural Support for extolling any translation over the others. Let me say that again: there is no Scriptural Support for extolling any translation over the others. Moreover, I challenge you to prove that anyone on this list subscribes to your bogus “mvism.” Until you can prove this, stop bearing false witness.
So Jim, as you are a part of the group who is claiming the total rejection of all other English translations of God’s Holy Word, it is time for YOU to “put up or shut up.” Stop making ludicrous claims about nonexistent cults and PROVE YOUR ASSERTION. It’s time to step up to the plate, Jim.

If you post anything more to this thread without Scriptural Proof for your claim, then you have continued to highlight the baseless nature it possesses.

 

[tinytim]

I think I finally came up with an answer to the title of the thread
"How did the Modern KJVO movement Get Started?"

Once upon a time, Satan said to one of his ranking demons, "it's about time we give the "christans" a new idol to worship. They are not foolish enough to worship an idol out of wood, but maybe they will worship something made from the pulp of wood like a book.
Yeah, that's it, let's get them worshiping a certain version of the Bible, that way they will turn their worship from the Creator."

The demon turned to him, and said, "Didn't we try this scam with the Catholic church a few hundreds years ago"

Satan said, "yeah, but the ones that will believe it this time, have no respect for historical truth, why to them education is a bad thing, so don't worry it'll work out fine"

The Demon asks, "Well, which one do you want them to worship?"
Satan says, "hummm, how about the 1611 KJV? I always did like the Apocrypha. Besides that, we could have fun messing with their minds and convincing them that, even though they use a 1769 KJV, It is a real 1611.... Now who was that guy I heard about a while back? Ricky, no, Rickman, no, Huckman, no, I've Got it RUCKMAN!!
Quick what's his number, He has got to read this SDA book!!!"

Bible worship is still worshiping a wooden idol.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I think I finally came up with an answer to the title of the thread
"How did the Modern KJVO movement Get Started?"

Once upon a time, Satan said to one of his ranking demons, "it's about time we give the "christans" a new idol to worship. They are not foolish enough to worship an idol out of wood, but maybe they will worship something made from the pulp of wood like a book.
Yeah, that's it, let's get them worshiping a certain version of the Bible, that way they will turn their worship from the Creator."

The demon turned to him, and said, "Didn't we try this scam with the Catholic church a few hundreds years ago"

Satan said, "yeah, but the ones that will believe it this time, have no respect for historical truth, why to them education is a bad thing, so don't worry it'll work out fine"

The Demon asks, "Well, which one do you want them to worship?"
Satan says, "hummm, how about the 1611 KJV? I always did like the Apocrypha. Besides that, we could have fun messing with their minds and convincing them that, even though they use a 1769 KJV, It is a real 1611.... Now who was that guy I heard about a while back? Ricky, no, Rickman, no, Huckman, no, I've Got it RUCKMAN!!
Quick what's his number, He has got to read this SDA book!!!"

Bible worship is still worshiping a wooden idol.

Hey now: leave the Apocrypha out of this. What did the Apocrypha ever do to you???

 

[rbrent]

For the edification of all interested parties, Dr. Ruckman does NOT believe or teach that folks can only be saved through reading the KJV.

For the edification of all interested parties, Dr. Ruckman does NOT believe or teach that folks who got led to the Lord through MVs are therefore, "not saved."

That is a strawman argument used by the ignorant.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Ignorant? Or folks who actually discern . .

Did someone say Ruckman believed that? I certainly did not. JACK HYLES, the leading ifb "guru" and great influence among many ifb'ers stated this publically. You MUST be saved using the KJV or you are not born again.

And it makes sense if you are KJVo. Logical.

Major Premise: You MUST have the Word of God to be saved (Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God)

Minor Premise: The KJV is the "ONLY" Word of God (modern versions are not)

Conclusion: You MUST be saved using ONLY the KJV

(still waiting for an "only" to explain to me which KJV is the perfect one, because they are all different!)