Is the KJVO Movement Dying?

[Van]

I voted that the KJV only doctrine will die out. The reason will not be because those teaching this doctrine grew old and died, but because the doctrine is unbiblical nonsense.

Not only is the KJV (whichever version you may advocate) flawed and needs to be improved, but as far as I know, all of our English translations contain flaws, mistaken interpretations, and ambiguous renderings that allow false doctrine to be read into the text.

For example when the word baptism is used, the translation to make clear whether our spiritual baptism into Christ is in view, or our water baptism performed by people is in view.

 

[Van]

I don’t know and I don’t care.

A college basketball coach asked a player why he made a mistake, was it ignorance or apathy? The quick rebuttal from the player was "I do not know and I do not care."

 

[Reynolds]

One thing a movement absolutely must have is leadership, and I believe we are seeing the old leadership die off, with no coherent young leadership to take over.

First of all, Peter Ruckman kicked the bucket in 2016, and I'm not aware that a leader of similar abilities has taken over that ministry. The Bible Baptist Bookstore website still has the information about Ruckman's funeral (https://store.kjv1611.org/about-dr-ruckman/), so that page at least has not been updated in 8 years. My impression is that they are just running in place. Under "New Items" they have little more than a bunch of sermons for high prices. Say what you want about Ruckman, he was well educated and a strong personality. (Please note that I completely oppose his double inspiration doctrine, his name calling, etc..)

D. A. Waite, founder of the Dean Burgon Society, has had a bunch of defections in recent years, but still holds on to leadership. That website also has not been updated recently. They have no advertisements for their annual meeting in 2024, and the link for the 2023 meeting doesn't seem to work. Did it take place? On their "Blog" page (Dean Burgon Society) they still have the nasty response by H. D. Williams to my Amazon review of his book, but that whole brouhaha was many years ago, and H. D. Williams has not been with the DBS in years! Dr. Waite is in his 90's. Who will take over that ministry?

Old guys who left the DBS started the King James Bible Research Council (Home), but like I say, they are mostly old guys (like me!). What is the future of that organization? Has a capable leader showed up among them?

Let's not even talk about old Gail Riplinger and her weirdness. She's not really a leader. And the Waites damaged her reputation when they found out she was on her third hubby after being divorced twice!

So, is the KJVO movement going to die out eventually?

It has been brain dead for a long time. Does that count?

 

[JD731]

Would you say or suggest that "the leaven" includes the entire 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

As far as I can remember I have never brought it up or even commented on it. I know nothing about it. This Bible may be perfect for all I know. Is that what you think about it? What I do know is that God did not use it to instruct his church when he moved west.

Did the Church of England makers of the KJV include some "leaven" in their translation when they borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?

That is your claim, right? It is not mine. I have studied the KJV Bible for many years and can find no fault in it. I am depending on the words of promise from God that I have heard, read for myself, and believed to deliver me from any condemnation, either while I live on this earth or when I die. If they do not deliver me I will know it and for me you will be proven right.

By what process do you claim that the makers of the KJV removed all "the leaven" from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision?

Quote me making that claim. I have never made that claim. Maybe all those Bibles are the pure words of God. What I do know is that God did not use them when he moved west with the gospel.

By the way, your saying it does not prove your claim or assertion to be true and scriptural. Perhaps your opinion is incorrect.

My opinion is always subject to be wrong. I have confidence when I quote the KJV I am not giving my opinion but the word of God. I am not wrong about that. That is the difference between you and me. You do not believe there are any pure words of God under heaven. Proving that is your life work.

 

[John of Japan]

It has been brain dead for a long time. Does that count?

To quote Curly, "Soitainly!"

 

[John of Japan]

In his early years, Jack Hyles (1926-2001) actually "corrected the KJV" from the pulpit and in his devotional commentary on Revelation. After his mentor and father figure John R. Rice went to Heaven in 1980, Hyles changed and became more radical in various ways. The main way was in the area of KJV-Onlyism. He had conferences on it, had Gail Riplinger in to "preach" at his church, and wrote books about it.

After JRR's death, I had a couple of fundamentalist leaders tell me they thought his relationship with JRR held back the radicalism of Hyles, and I agree. In fact, in her "authorized biography" of her father, The Fundamental Man, Cindy Hyles Schaap said pretty much the same thing, though I don't have the quote handy.

However, I do have a quote about the KJV from his book, The Need for An Every-Word Bible (Hyles Publications, 2003):
"Still another crowd says, 'The Bible was only inspired in the original.'...When a church says in their articles of faith, 'We believe that the word of God was inspired in the original language,' then the average person in that church thinks that maybe the originals have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This belief is not true....If the only place in the world where we have a word-for-word inspired Bible is in the originals, that means that today there is no book that contains the words of God. ...Theologians have ruined this country. It is very popular to say, 'In the original, it says...' There is no original to look at." (pp. 137-140).

This is actually pretty mild compared to some other stuff he wrote. But the present pastor of First Baptist of Hammond would not agree.

 

[JD731]

It has been brain dead for a long time. Does that count?

You got some likes on this comment, Reynolds. What does it mean that a movement is brain dead? Most people, including the worlds greatest critic of the KJVO movement, Mr Rick Norris says the KJV is a good translation .with only a few problems in his estimation. He and you both would say the same thing about whichever translation/translations you choose yet you would say you believe them and would probably say your hope of redemption is in the message of your translations, right? How else would you know that you were particularly elected without them? Who would accuse you of being brain dead for believing your translations even with the few problems? It takes reading and study and logic and reasoning to reach your conclusions of what is taught in the scriptures. A brain dead person could not reach any conclusion. because he could not think.

Now I don't even like and respect many KJV only people. I have never read anything by Peter Ruckman that I can remember. I am in the same camp as the apostle Paul when it comes to women preachers and teachers of men, but I will say that someone gave me a copy of Ms Riplinger's book about the KJV and I canned it and threw it away before I got it half read. I did not like the tone of her writing and I have enough sense to know that if God had something to say on the subject he would get a man to say it. And I think he did. He got me to say good things about the KJV. I have said it is the word of God. Now there might be other words of God but I cannot tell. I have not read them all. I don't think you would claim your Bible is the word of God.

I have not quoted anyone ever in my defense of my beliefs of the scriptures. not in all the years I have posted on these forums. I came to the conclusion that I have the true Bible from personal study and convictions over a number of years. I know that I have been able to dig out spiritual truths by comparing scriptures words and phrases, counting the numbers and other ways. I see a consistency of terms and similitudes in the KJV that cannot be an accident or coincident. Maybe you could find a consistency in your Bibles but you do not say you can or have. You insist your Bible is not the word of God. You indicate by your actions that it is just a compilation of words that can and probably have been rendered better by a different set of scholars and someone yet down the road is likely to do a better job than them.. You have pretty much eliminated the possibility of comparing your translation with itself to ascertain truth because you don't think the words are anything special. Words studies would be pretty much out, it seems to me. This is a big part of my studies in my KJV.

But, brain dead? I don't know about brain dead. Could be I guess. But I don't feel brain dead, however brain dead is supposed to feel. I am probably going to have to give it some thought..........but wait, if I am brain dead that will not be possible. It takes a brain life to think.

I personally think a person who has a number of Bibles they don't believe are true because they have errors that no one even knows are errors and that is all they can ever hope to have indicates they have a very low view of God. Surely he cannot be sovereign. With all these Bibles floating around with errors.

 

[Logos1560]

What I do know is that God did not use them when he moved west with the gospel.

You may think that you know, but it does not prove that you actually know. Perhaps you do not know all the facts. Many believers took the Geneva Bible with them when they moved west to the Americas.

The Geneva Bible had a very important influence on America and its founding. Jack P. Lewis maintained that “the Mayflower Compact was signed on the Geneva Bible, and the Geneva played an important role in the history of early America” (The English Bible from KJV to NIV, p. 26). Robert McCrum asserted that “the first New England settlements always championed the use of the Geneva Bible” (Globish: How the English Language, p. 90). David Daniell noted: “The Geneva Bible was at the heart of the founding of those colonies, as will be seen, in a greater way than even [the] KJV” (Bible in English, p. 221). Daniell contended: “This evidence of the regular use of the Geneva Bible can be supported by many documents from the colonies” (p. 425). Cotton Mather (1663-1729) in his history of Harvard referred to “the notes in the Geneva Bible (which were considered authoritative)” (Hall, Genevan Reformation and the American Founding, p. 313). David Cloud maintained that “the Bible brought to America by its first settlers in the early 1600’s was the Geneva Bible” (Rome and the Bible, p. 106). Steve Green and Todd Hillard asserted: “Throughout the 1600’s as people fled the religious persecution of England by crossing the Atlantic, they brought with them their precious Geneva Bibles rather than the ‘King’s Bible.’ The Geneva Bible was more popular than the King James Version for several decades” (The Bible in America, p. 33). G. S. Wegener maintained that the Geneva Bible “was to become equally popular in America, where it accompanied many who exiled themselves from Britain for conscience’s sake” (6000 Years, p. 237). Jack Lewis also confirmed that “the Geneva played an important role in the history of early America” (English Bible, p. 26).

James P. Stobaugh asserted: “American was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 120). J. Paul Foster wrote: “It can truthfully be said that this version shaped America. For it was the Geneva Bible that the Pilgrims brought over with them to America, and, as all their laws and institutions were founded on that Book, and their Bible was the Geneva version, was not America’s childhood shaped by that version?” (The Christian Nation, Vol. 54, June 7, 1911, p. 5). David Hall asserted: “Primary documents confirm the thesis we have been documenting: the Declaration of Independence, acts of the Continental Congress between 1776 and 1787, and the United States Constitution all bear the impress of two centuries of Calvinistic thinking” (Genevan Reformation, p, 420). Hall wrote: “Other transporters of Calvinism to the West were the Geneva Bible and Beza’s New Testament Annotations” (p. 286).

Diarmaid MacCulloch indicated that a “half a million copies of the Geneva Bible” were printed and that the surviving copies indicate that they “have usually been read to bits” (Reformation, p. 569). Dale S. Kuehne maintained that the Geneva Bible “continued to be the Bible of Calvinists in both England and America into the 1700’s” (Kries, Piety and Humanity, p. 214). L. C. Vass noted that “like a Scotchman, he [George Durant] brought his Geneva Bible with him” to North Carolina in 1662 (History of the Presbyterian Church in New Bern, p. 11). David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that Bibles printed in 1562, 1577, and 1579 [editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands” (History of the English Bible as Literature, p. 39). In a footnote, Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3). He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.” Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84). John Brown noted that “as late as the close of the 18th century a Genevan Bible was still in use in the church of Crail in Fifeshire” (History of the English Bible, p. 84).

 

[Logos1560]

I personally think a person who has a number of Bibles they don't believe are true because they have errors that no one even knows are errors and that is all they can ever hope to have indicates they have a very low view of God. Surely he cannot be sovereign. With all these Bibles floating around with errors.

Are you suggesting that God cannot be sovereign with all the many varying editions of the KJV floating around with errors? The 1611 edition of the KJV had several errors in it. The 1631 London KJV had the well-known error "thou shalt commit adultery" along with errors that it kept from the 1611 edition. While it corrected some errors from earlier KJV editions, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is said to have over 100 errors with one new error introduced in it remaining in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years. No one likely knows all the errors that have been introduced into the over 200 varying editions of the KJV printed from 1611 until today.

Do you suggest that God cannot be sovereign with all the editions of the KJV that included many errors that were printed by the king's printer in Scotland? The royal printer in Scotland who obtained the patent or rights from Charles II to print the KJV was Andro or Andrew Anderson. John Eadie noted that “Anderson and his widow after him were patentees for many years--from 1671-1712” (English Bible, II, p. 317). Christopher Anderson wrote: “Bibles the most illegible and incorrect that ever were printed in the world came from this press; the patentee persecuted all the other printers in Scotland, and at last went so far as to seize a number of Bibles brought from London by the booksellers” (Annals, II, p. 561). John Eadie asserted: “Her Bibles swarmed with deplorable blunders, and the gross carelessness of the printing was fostered by the want [lack] of all competition” (English Bible, II, p. 318). Robert Chambers claimed: “Fac-similes of a few pages from her Bibles--in poor blurred type, almost unintelligible with errors, with italic letters employed wherever the Roman font fell short, and some lines wholly without spaces between the words--would appall the reader” (Domestic Annals of Scotland, p. 364). Concerning Anderson and his widow as royal printer, Hugo Arnot wrote: “Nothing came from the royal press, but the most illegible and uncorrect Bibles and books, that ever were printed in any one place in the world” (History of Edinburgh, p. 435).

In the 1859 Report from the Select Committee on the Queen Printers’ Patent, Robert Besley asserted: “If I choose to print an inaccurate edition, the patent does not meddle with me” (p. 20).

 

[John of Japan]

Excerpt from The Last Revivalist of the 20th Century, by John R. Himes, 2022, pp. 271-272:

"It was at this point in his career that Hyles rejected the fundamentalism of Rice and became radicalized completely in this area. Though strongly opposing divorce, he embraced the teachings of twice divorced Peter Ruckman and reportedly gave an honorary doctorate at his 1996 Pastors’ School to twice divorced woman preacher Gail Riplinger, who wrote the nonsensical book New Age Versions. The advertisement for that year’s Pastors’ School had the title “The Trial of the Century! Is the King James Bible the Word of God?” His radicalization in this area led to a radicalization of his doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, in which anyone who did not agree with his position on the King James Version was not worthy of fellowship. According to Lyon’s dissertation, 'Hyles’s version of separation was closer to Bob Jones, Jr.’s than Rice’s. The clearest example of this was the debate over the King James Version and personal moral standards.'"

 

[John of Japan]

The son-in-law of Hyles, Jack Schaap, succeeded him, but did not follow his father-in-law's position completely, rejecting double inspiration. Unfortunately, Schaap ended up with a ten year prison sentence for taking a teen across state lines for illicit purposes. His successor, fortunately, is a good man who does not appear to follow Hyles in this area.

 

[JD731]

Are you suggesting that God cannot be sovereign with all the many varying editions of the KJV floating around with errors? The 1611 edition of the KJV had several errors in it. The 1631 London KJV had the well-known error "thou shalt commit adultery" along with errors that it kept from the 1611 edition. While it corrected some errors from earlier KJV editions, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is said to have over 100 errors with one new error introduced in it remaining in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years. No one likely knows all the errors that have been introduced into the over 200 varying editions of the KJV printed from 1611 until today.

Do you suggest that God cannot be sovereign with all the editions of the KJV that included many errors that were printed by the king's printer in Scotland? The royal printer in Scotland who obtained the patent or rights from Charles II to print the KJV was Andro or Andrew Anderson. John Eadie noted that “Anderson and his widow after him were patentees for many years--from 1671-1712” (English Bible, II, p. 317). Christopher Anderson wrote: “Bibles the most illegible and incorrect that ever were printed in the world came from this press; the patentee persecuted all the other printers in Scotland, and at last went so far as to seize a number of Bibles brought from London by the booksellers” (Annals, II, p. 561). John Eadie asserted: “Her Bibles swarmed with deplorable blunders, and the gross carelessness of the printing was fostered by the want [lack] of all competition” (English Bible, II, p. 318). Robert Chambers claimed: “Fac-similes of a few pages from her Bibles--in poor blurred type, almost unintelligible with errors, with italic letters employed wherever the Roman font fell short, and some lines wholly without spaces between the words--would appall the reader” (Domestic Annals of Scotland, p. 364). Concerning Anderson and his widow as royal printer, Hugo Arnot wrote: “Nothing came from the royal press, but the most illegible and uncorrect Bibles and books, that ever were printed in any one place in the world” (History of Edinburgh, p. 435).

In the 1859 Report from the Select Committee on the Queen Printers’ Patent, Robert Besley asserted: “If I choose to print an inaccurate edition, the patent does not meddle with me” (p. 20).

I am not going to continue this argument with you, What I do know is that the inspired scriptures and faith in them is a fundamental of the faith. God has spoken much about it in and during human history. One of the great revelations he made, in a defined transition of God, that advanced our understanding of the written word of God as the same and equal with the spoken word of God. It is assumed by God that believers, Christians, will believe what he has revealed.

God, who was super active in human history during the first two thousand years had only revealed himself by his name LORD God (Jehovah Elohim), a plural name. He was impersonal and far off during the time leading up to his covenant relationship with Abraham in Ge 11/12.But in Ge 15 God made a profound advancement in his transition of his revelation of himself when he introduced two new things in one person. First he introduced a vison of the word of the LORD (first mention) that Abraham could see with his eyes, and he revealed his name as Adonay Jehovah (Lord GOD). This is the first time in history that scripture had used this title of Jesus Christ. He will be identified by comparing scriptures with scriptures. For instance one can find this truth by comparing Ps 110 with Acts 13.

This took place in the very beginning of the third millennium. There is only one person called the word of the LORD in scripture because there was only one. When the KJV says about a prophet, such as Ezekiel, that the word of the LORD came unto him saying, it is often times a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ who comes and first speaks the words the prophet is to deliver to such and such or to write for preservation. This can be easily proven for people who actually believes the scriptures. Nothing can be proven from the scriptures to men who have religion and opinions only. It seems by reading that the confirmation of the call of a prophet was the vision of the word of the LORD to him. I will quote this one passage as proof.

1 Sam 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.
2 And it came to pass at that time, when Eli was laid down in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim, that he could not see;
3 And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;

4 That the Lord called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.
5 And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.
6 And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.

7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.

8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord
came, and
stood, and
called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

11 And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

15 And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.
16 Then Eli called Samuel, and said, Samuel, my son. And he answered, Here am I.
17 And he said, What is the thing that the Lord hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee.
18 And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him. And he said, It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.
19 And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.
20 And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord.

21 And the Lord appeared

again in Shiloh:

for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord.

I know before I post this that it will have no effect at all on most of you guys. It will advance your understanding of God at all.

You do not know what the word "revealed" means in the context.

Now, the word of the Lord is mentioned 13 times in the scriptures after he rose from the dead. One of those times suggests that the word of the Lord be glorified by the Christians.

Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

2 Thessalonians 3:1
Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

When God wants something glorified, it will be diety.

I have seen a problem with posters here on this board. Most really do not have a clue what the scriptures say but they do have a clue about what their religion tells them the scriptures say, which often times is wrong. Logos, you quote everbody but God. There is only one word of the Lord no matter how long and hard you argue.

 

[JD731]

Are you suggesting that God cannot be sovereign with all the many varying editions of the KJV floating around with errors? The 1611 edition of the KJV had several errors in it. The 1631 London KJV had the well-known error "thou shalt commit adultery" along with errors that it kept from the 1611 edition. While it corrected some errors from earlier KJV editions, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV is said to have over 100 errors with one new error introduced in it remaining in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years. No one likely knows all the errors that have been introduced into the over 200 varying editions of the KJV printed from 1611 until today.

Do you suggest that God cannot be sovereign with all the editions of the KJV that included many errors that were printed by the king's printer in Scotland? The royal printer in Scotland who obtained the patent or rights from Charles II to print the KJV was Andro or Andrew Anderson. John Eadie noted that “Anderson and his widow after him were patentees for many years--from 1671-1712” (English Bible, II, p. 317). Christopher Anderson wrote: “Bibles the most illegible and incorrect that ever were printed in the world came from this press; the patentee persecuted all the other printers in Scotland, and at last went so far as to seize a number of Bibles brought from London by the booksellers” (Annals, II, p. 561). John Eadie asserted: “Her Bibles swarmed with deplorable blunders, and the gross carelessness of the printing was fostered by the want [lack] of all competition” (English Bible, II, p. 318). Robert Chambers claimed: “Fac-similes of a few pages from her Bibles--in poor blurred type, almost unintelligible with errors, with italic letters employed wherever the Roman font fell short, and some lines wholly without spaces between the words--would appall the reader” (Domestic Annals of Scotland, p. 364). Concerning Anderson and his widow as royal printer, Hugo Arnot wrote: “Nothing came from the royal press, but the most illegible and uncorrect Bibles and books, that ever were printed in any one place in the world” (History of Edinburgh, p. 435).

In the 1859 Report from the Select Committee on the Queen Printers’ Patent, Robert Besley asserted: “If I choose to print an inaccurate edition, the patent does not meddle with me” (p. 20).

I am not going to continue this argument with you, What I do know is that the inspired scriptures and faith in them is a fundamental of the faith. God has spoken much about it in and during human history. One of the great revelations he made, in a defined transition of God, that advanced our understanding of the written word of God as the same and equal with the spoken word of God. It is assumed by God that believers, Christians, will believe what he has revealed.

God, who was super active in human history during the first two thousand years had only revealed himself by his name LORD God (Jehovah Elohim), a plural name. He was impersonal and far off during the time leading up to his covenant relationship with Abraham in Ge 11/12.But in Ge 15 God made a profound advancement in his transition of his revelation of himself when he introduced two new things in one person. First he introduced a vison of the word of the LORD (first mention) that Abraham could see with his eyes, and he revealed his name as Adonay Jehovah (Lord GOD). This is the first time in history that scripture had used this title of Jesus Christ. He will be identified by comparing scriptures with scriptures. For instance one can find this truth by comparing Ps 110 with Acts 13.

This took place in the very beginning of the third millennium. There is only one person called the word of the LORD in scripture because there was only one. When the KJV says about a prophet, such as Ezekiel, that the word of the LORD came unto him saying, it is often times a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ who comes and first speaks the words the prophet is to deliver to such and such or to write for preservation. This can be easily proven for people who actually believes the scriptures. Nothing can be proven from the scriptures to men who have religion and opinions only. It seems by reading that the confirmation of the call of a prophet was the vision of the word of the LORD to him. I will quote this one passage as proof.

1 Sam 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.
2 And it came to pass at that time, when Eli was laid down in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim, that he could not see;
3 And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;

4 That the Lord called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.
5 And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.
6 And the Lord called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.

7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.

8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child.
9 Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord
came, and
stood, and
called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

11 And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

15 And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.
16 Then Eli called Samuel, and said, Samuel, my son. And he answered, Here am I.
17 And he said, What is the thing that the Lord hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee.
18 And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him. And he said, It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.
19 And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.
20 And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord.

21 And the Lord appeared

again in Shiloh:

for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord.

I know before I post this that it will have no effect at all on most of you guys. It will advance your understanding of God at all.

You do not know what the word "revealed" means in the context.

Now, the word of the Lord is mentioned 13 times in the scriptures after he rose from the dead. One of those times suggests that the word of the Lord be glorified by the Christians.

Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

2 Thessalonians 3:1
Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

When God wants something glorified, it will be diety.

I have seen a problem with posters here on this board. Most really do not have a clue what the scriptures say but they do have a clue about what their religion tells them the scriptures say, which often times is wrong. Logos, you quote everbody but God. There is only one word of the Lord no matter how long and hard you argue.

 

[Logos1560]

I have seen a problem with posters here on this board. Most really do not have a clue what the scriptures say but they do have a clue about what their religion tells them the scriptures say, which often times is wrong.

Your opinions of believers posting here are often wrong. Many of them do really have an understanding of what the Scriptures state and teach.

You seem to have a problem when others do not blindly accept your private interpretations or imperfect understandings of what the Scriptures state and teach. You refuse to deal with all the facts concerning Bible translations including the KJV.

I have quoted from the KJV at this forum, but that is not directly quoting God. You also are not directly quoting from God when you quote from the KJV. The KJV is a Bible translation, not the word of God directly given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV, the KJ2000, etc. are the word of God translated into English.

The actual errors in Bible translations are not the perfect, inspired word of God. Words added by men in Bible translations can be incorrect, and the KJV has many words added by its translators.

 

[Reynolds]

You got some likes on this comment, Reynolds. What does it mean that a movement is brain dead? Most people, including the worlds greatest critic of the KJVO movement, Mr Rick Norris says the KJV is a good translation .with only a few problems in his estimation. He and you both would say the same thing about whichever translation/translations you choose yet you would say you believe them and would probably say your hope of redemption is in the message of your translations, right? How else would you know that you were particularly elected without them? Who would accuse you of being brain dead for believing your translations even with the few problems? It takes reading and study and logic and reasoning to reach your conclusions of what is taught in the scriptures. A brain dead person could not reach any conclusion. because he could not think.

Now I don't even like and respect many KJV only people. I have never read anything by Peter Ruckman that I can remember. I am in the same camp as the apostle Paul when it comes to women preachers and teachers of men, but I will say that someone gave me a copy of Ms Riplinger's book about the KJV and I canned it and threw it away before I got it half read. I did not like the tone of her writing and I have enough sense to know that if God had something to say on the subject he would get a man to say it. And I think he did. He got me to say good things about the KJV. I have said it is the word of God. Now there might be other words of God but I cannot tell. I have not read them all. I don't think you would claim your Bible is the word of God.

I have not quoted anyone ever in my defense of my beliefs of the scriptures. not in all the years I have posted on these forums. I came to the conclusion that I have the true Bible from personal study and convictions over a number of years. I know that I have been able to dig out spiritual truths by comparing scriptures words and phrases, counting the numbers and other ways. I see a consistency of terms and similitudes in the KJV that cannot be an accident or coincident. Maybe you could find a consistency in your Bibles but you do not say you can or have. You insist your Bible is not the word of God. You indicate by your actions that it is just a compilation of words that can and probably have been rendered better by a different set of scholars and someone yet down the road is likely to do a better job than them.. You have pretty much eliminated the possibility of comparing your translation with itself to ascertain truth because you don't think the words are anything special. Words studies would be pretty much out, it seems to me. This is a big part of my studies in my KJV.

But, brain dead? I don't know about brain dead. Could be I guess. But I don't feel brain dead, however brain dead is supposed to feel. I am probably going to have to give it some thought..........but wait, if I am brain dead that will not be possible. It takes a brain life to think.

I personally think a person who has a number of Bibles they don't believe are true because they have errors that no one even knows are errors and that is all they can ever hope to have indicates they have a very low view of God. Surely he cannot be sovereign. With all these Bibles floating around with errors.

KJVO comes with many looney claims. I like the KJV. I own several. I don't believe in second inspiration, which is a major tenet of KJVO.
Nothing wrong with KJV, the "O" is where the looniness begins.

 

[JD731]

Your opinions of believers posting here are often wrong. Many of them do really have an understanding of what the Scriptures state and teach.

You seem to have a problem when others do not blindly accept your private interpretations or imperfect understandings of what the Scriptures state and teach. You refuse to deal with all the facts concerning Bible translations including the KJV.

It has been a very rare thing for you to oppose something I have presented from the scriptures that is not related to the purity of the words of God. I just have written about the personality of the word of the LORD, that was revealed in Genesis 15 for the first time and it is not a private interpretation. I did not have to interpret it at all, I just had to believe it. When Moses wrote that the word of the LORD came to Abraham in a vision, it was Jesus Christ who told him what to write. What did Abraham see, the alphabet? No, he saw Adonay Jehovah, the Lord GOD. He saw a Christophany. The word of the Lord is a person. This is not the testimony of Moses or Abraham, it is the testimony of God. Abraham did not write any scripture and Moses was far removed in time and could not have been giving a personal testimony of something he saw.

I have quoted from the KJV at this forum, but that is not directly quoting God. You also are not directly quoting from God when you quote from the KJV. The KJV is a Bible translation, not the word of God directly given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV, the KJ2000, etc. are the word of God translated into English.

The actual errors in Bible translations are not the perfect, inspired word of God. Words added by men in Bible translations can be incorrect, and the KJV has many words added by its translators.

If I am right about the scriptures and the word of the Lord is a person who has given us the word of God then it is reasonable to believe that the words he gives conveys things that can be understood by what they say and also things that cannot be known by the natural man. I am going to guess that most men reading my post concerning Gen 15 will reject what I said about it. Most will tell you they do not believe in any transitions in the scriptures that advances God's revelation of himself and his ways. But I do not have to guess if all scripture has a spiritual quality that cannot be understood. Jesus demonstrated that exact truth in John 6 with the bread of life, that he claimed he was. How many of the crowd understood that? and when he told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, what happened to the crowd. Many departed because they said it was a hard saying. But what did Jesus say about it? Here is what he said;

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

If Jesus Christ is the word of the Lord all through the history and his words have a spiritual as well as a natural content then I am saying that the natural man attempting to translate them from one language to another cannot possibly do it in such a way that the spiritual content is preserved, and if his words are life that must be in a person to give him life, Then the best works of man in translating falls far short of the spiritual though they may be praised to the high heavens by the natural man. I cannot believe that there is more than one word of the Lord in any language and I believe that men who are ready to accept hundreds of paraphrases and translations in a single language are not spiritual men.

1 Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, (there is one) but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

How else are thoughts conveyed except through words?

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

KJV
61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

NIV
61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.”

ESV
And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.”

Where am I wrong about this Logos1560?

 

[Logos1560]

I cannot believe that there is more than one word of the Lord in any language and I believe that men who are ready to accept hundreds of paraphrases and translations in a single language are not spiritual men.

Are you suggesting that the multiple pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of the Lord in English?

Do you indicate that you refuse to believe the truth concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV which is a revision of them?

Are you in effect suggesting that the KJV is a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles that were not the word of the Lord in English?

The English foundation of the KJV is more than one word of God in English so you seem to attack the KJV's underlying English foundation--the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

Perhaps you attempt to create a bogus strawman to attack since you have not quoted where any believers are advocating and recommending the acceptance of hundreds of paraphrases and translations in a single language. You may choose to believe your strawman and your opinions that are not true.

 

[JD731]

Are you suggesting that the multiple pre-1611 English Bibles were not the word of the Lord in English?

I did not address those Bibles. They may be the word of the Lord, I don't know, but I do know that neither you or anyone else is claiming they are.

Do you indicate that you refuse to believe the truth concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV which is a revision of them?

They may be the word of the LORD. I have no history with them. Are you claiming they are the word of the Lord?

Are you in effect suggesting that the KJV is a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles that were not the word of the Lord in English?

I have never suggested that, in effect, or in any other way.

The English foundation of the KJV is more than one word of God in English so you seem to attack the KJV's underlying English foundation--the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

I think you might be misrepresenting what I said. I would have to go back and check but I think I have been writing about the word of the Lord being a personality and have I even written about the word of God? Maybe. It has not been my subject.

Perhaps you attempt to create a bogus strawman to attack since you have not quoted where any believers are advocating and recommending the acceptance of hundreds of paraphrases and translations in a single language. You may choose to believe your strawman and your opinions that are not true.

The translation of choice among most religious people is more or less subjective, I think. I doubt that but very few are giving the thought into choosing a translation that you propose. How many people are even reading Bibles, much less studying them? I say very few. Who is even interested in those dry translations that have no spirit in them? There is a reason the church has lost her power and can be led in any direction the charlatans want her to go. These translations are ornaments. They have no power. Why would anyone be challenged to read any Bibles to know about the person and ways of God who has been reading your constant attacks of truth? As far as I can remember is that the many years you have bloviated on these forums you have NEVER recommended a Bible or Bibles that you think will help someone know God. You have been complete negativity. You have rarely quoted any Bible. (posting a bunch of references don't count because doing that only keeps you from quoting the Bible you are attacking, the KJV. Have you ever quoted any other Bible?) I think maybe one man in history you could possibly connect with but you even have him beat by a mile, and that man is Jonah. He did not make it into Heb 11, faiths hall of fame.

I do not know what you believe about the word of the Lord. .You did not say whether you agree with what I learned from scripture and that is that the word of the Lord is Adonay Jehovah, the Lord GOD of scripture, Jesus Christ in the OT and the New?
Do you agree and believe that?

Just in Ezekiel alone the word of the Lord is in 60 verses and Adonay Jehovah, the Lord GOD is in 210 verses in the same place as Ezekiel speaking to and instructing the prophet. What do you make of that?

 

[John of Japan]

Shelton Smith, the current editor of the Sword of the Lord (SOTL), a fundamentalist newspaper, is strongly KJVO. Here is a blog referencing an article by Smith which claims that the KJV is "Inspired, Inerrant, and Infallible"-- https://faithalone.org/blog/kjv-is-inspired-says-dr-sheldon-smith-in-sword-of-the-lord/. In 2008, Smith hosted "The King James Bible Conference" with David Sorenson and other speakers. Having said that, the conference did rebut double inspiration, which was good

Smith took over the SOTL when the previous editor, Curtis Hutson (1934-1995) died. Hutson took over the paper when its founder, John R. Rice (1895-1980), died. Hutson was mentored by Rice, but then came out as KJVO after Rice's death, even having Gail Riplinger speak in a conference and promoting her literature. I knew Hutson and he even preached my ordination message, so I was very disappointed in that. Having said that, I have in my files a front page article from the SOTL of March 17, 1989, by Gary Hudson opposing Ruckmanism, "Ruckman's Unscriptural Claims for the K.J.V."

JRR was dead set against the KJVO movement, in particular Peter Ruckman. Note Rice's treatment of Ruckman in I Am a Fundamentalist (1979, p. 74): "When a Peter Ruckman sets out to say that only he and a few others in the world are right on the matter of manuscript evidence for the Bible and says that in the King James Version the translation itself was inspired of God and is without error…, and that all are modernists or hypocrites or ignorant who do not agree that the King James Version—even the translation—is inspired perfectly, then we know that that arrogant attitude, that calling of good men by bad names, shows the man cannot be trusted in doctrine."

Back to Shelton Smith. I've talked to him a couple of times, and like him. He is gracious, educated (earned doctorates), and loves baseball, so what's not to like? In regards to the OP, though, he is well up there in age. The SOTL website doesn't give his date of birth, but does say that he was married in 1961: https://www.swordofthelord.com/drsheltonsmith. This would probably put him up in his 80's. So again, a KJVO leader is up in years.

It remains to be seen who the next editor will be and what his position will be. But in my view, the younger fundamentalists nowadays are either drifting towards broader evangelicalism, or more involved than ever in revivalism and worldwide missions (including missionary Bible translation).

 

[Logos1560]

I did not address those Bibles. They may be the word of the Lord, I don't know, but I do know that neither you or anyone else is claiming they are.

They may be the word of the LORD. I have no history with them. Are you claiming they are the word of the Lord?

If the pre-1611 English Bibles may be the word of the Lord, it would clearly contradict and refute your claim that there can only be one word of the Lord in each language. Since you say that you do not know whether they are the word of the Lord, you cannot truly claim that there can only be one word of the Lord in English.

You cannot truly, consistently, and soundly address the 1611 KJV without also addressing the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision. Over 50% and up to 70% of the KJV comes directly from one or more of those pre-1611 English Bibles.

You suggest that you have not read completely my posts since I have stated several times that they [the pre-1611 English Bibles] are the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is the word of God translated into English.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV, the KJ2000, etc. are the word of God translated into English.