Is the KJVO Movement Dying?

[John of Japan]

Thank you for your reply. Was "Bible For Today" simply the name of his church and website? Or was that another KJV only organization besides "The Dean Burgon Society". By the way, in case you didn't know. Jack Mooreman also passed away a few years ago. I understand he was also with DBS.

Right, "Bible for Today" was Waite's website and church name.

I didn't know Jack Moorman had passed away. Thanks for informing me. I'm sure he was a good man. The DBS crowd called him a scholar and a textual critic, but as a Bible prof and Greek teacher, I have to say his "scholarship" was very poor. He often did not source his information--we were just supposed to take his word for things, I guess. Other times he got sources wrong, quoted from 2nd parties who had the book that he didn't (something to be done only rarely), used very old sources which were not up to date or had been replaced, etc.

 

[37818]

 

[Truth Seeker]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but who exactly began KJV onlyism in IFB churches? I'm debating if it was Peter Ruckman or David Otis Fuller? Ruckman wrote books on the topic back in the 1960's. I believe David Otis Fuller did not write on the topic until the 1970's.

 

[37818]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but who exactly began KJV onlyism in IFB churches? I'm debating if it was Peter Ruckman or David Otis Fuller? Ruckman wrote books on the topic back in the 1960's. I believe David Otis Fuller did not write on the topic until the 1970's.

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text.

The Revised Standard Version is an English translation of the Bible published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Wikipedia

Isaiah 7:14, . . . young woman . . . .

The movement has its causes.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but who exactly began KJV onlyism in IFB churches? I'm debating if it was Peter Ruckman or David Otis Fuller? Ruckman wrote books on the topic back in the 1960's. I believe David Otis Fuller did not write on the topic until the 1970's.

I place the origin of the movement in 1970, when two books came out: The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, by Peter Ruckman, and Which Bible?, edited by David Otis Fuller. Those both turned out to be very influential books.

Fuller's book purported to be truly scholarly, with essays by well known scholars like Zane Hodges, Robert Dick Wilson, etc. Of course, then there was the seminal book included (the whole book!) by Benjamin Wilkinson, the 7th Day Adventist.

Ruckman's book was actually pretty tame for him, and he had the cachet of a PhD from Bob Jones University to make him look good.

Some would object to 1970, citing earlier works like God Wrote Only One Bible, by the mysterious Jasper J. Ray in 1955. But that book did not really start a movement, and did not have the purported scholarship of Ruckman and Fuller. Plus, it was revised in 1970!

By the mid-1970's, the movement was affecting Bible colleges. There was so much arguing in the dorms of Tennessee Temple by then that Lee Roberson, our pres, announced in chapel that there would be no more Bible translation discussions in the dorm, on pain of demerits or worse.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I place the origin of the movement in 1970, when two books came out: The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, by Peter Ruckman, and Which Bible?, edited by David Otis Fuller. Those both turned out to be very influential books.

Fuller's book purported to be truly scholarly, with essays by well known scholars like Zane Hodges, Robert Dick Wilson, etc. Of course, then there was the seminal book included (the whole book!) by Benjamin Wilkinson, the 7th Day Adventist.

Ruckman's book was actually pretty tame for him, and he had the cachet of a PhD from Bob Jones University to make him look good.

Some would object to 1970, citing earlier works like God Wrote Only One Bible, by the mysterious Jasper J. Ray in 1955. But that book did not really start a movement, and did not have the purported scholarship of Ruckman and Fuller. Plus, it was revised in 1970!

By the mid-1970's, the movement was affecting Bible colleges. There was so much arguing in the dorms of Tennessee Temple by then that Lee Roberson, our pres, announced in chapel that there would be no more Bible translation discussions in the dorm, by pain of demerits or worse.

So it appears that both streams of KJV onlyism (Ruckmanism and TR Only) began at the same time. I agree with you about James Jasper Ray. I don't see that book starting the KJV movement, even though his book predated the 1970's. Peter Ruckman did publish a book "The Bible Babel" back in 1964. I read somewhere that Lee Roberson was not really KJV only similar to John R Rice, is this accurate?

 

[John of Japan]

So it appears that both streams of KJV onlyism (Ruckmanism and TR Only) began at the same time. I agree with you about James Jasper Ray. I don't see that book starting the KJV movement, even though his book predated the 1970's. Peter Ruckman did publish a book "The Bible Babel" back in 1964. I read somewhere that Lee Roberson was not really KJV only similar to John R Rice, is this accurate?

That is correct about Lee Roberson. I heard him preach 100s of times, have some of his sermon books, and have read his biography by James Wigton, Lee Roberson, and Roberson's own autobiographical book, Double-Breasted. Never have I heard or read of him saying the KJV is all there is. He was far more interested in soul-winning, world missions, and otherwise serving the Lord.

 

[robt.k.fall]

If I understand the dynamics correctly, a lot of the DBS’ pushback came from BJU’s promotion of the NASB. BJ’s Greek faculty. When I listened to Fuller and Waite and Fuller seemed to be leading the charge for the KJVO position. Another person in the mix who hasn’t been mentioned yet is Jack Hyles. He held the position that IIRC one could only be saved if the witnesser used the KJV. Which he spread through his Pastors’ School.

 

[John of Japan]

If I understand the dynamics correctly, a lot of the DBS’ pushback came from BJU’s promotion of the NASB. BJ’s Greek faculty. When I listened to Fuller and Waite and Fuller seemed to be leading the charge for the KJVO position. Another person in the mix who hasn’t been mentioned yet is Jack Hyles. He held the position that IIRC one could only be saved if the witnesser used the KJV. Which he spread through his Pastors’ School.

Just to clarify, Hyles did not take his KJVO position until the early 1980s, after his mentor and father figure John R. Rice went to Heaven in December of 1980.

Here is a paragraph from my book on Rice that discusses the change:

These facts set the stage for understanding how Hyles changed his doctrine of inspiration after the death of Rice, at least in the public arena. Even his defenders have admitted that he held to the inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages (as opposed to the English language) until after Rice’s death. In his 1967 book Let’s Study the Revelation, Hyles referred several times to the meaning of words in the original New Testament Greek to clarify the KJV’s rendering. According to Hyles, however, contrary to the 1967 references, he had always held the same position on the inspiration of the KJV but did not reveal his position to Rice out of respect. He wrote, “There were two or three things with which I did not agree with Dr. Rice, but I never told him” (Hyles, Fundamentalism in My Lifetime, 152). One of those “things” he alluded to was that the KJV was an inspired translation which should never be changed or corrected. (John R. Rice, by John R. Himes, p. 270).​

John R. Rice would have been appalled at the position Hyles took, that you could not be saved without the KJV. And by the way, speaking as a missionary, that is a terrible position because many languages do not even have a TR based NT, much less some kind of "KJV" in their language.

 

[John of Japan]

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text.

The Revised Standard Version is an English translation of the Bible published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Wikipedia

Isaiah 7:14, . . . young woman . . . .

The movement has its causes.

Fundamentalists opposed the RSV, but the movement did not become KJVO at that time.

When the RSV was published, fundamentalists opposed it publicly and strongly. I have a pamphlet of two radio messages by fundamentalist Bob Sumner (1922-2016) in 1952, immediately after the publishing of the RSV. The pamphlet opposes the RSV, exposing the liberalism of the translators, and various errors of translation.

Sumner was never KJVO, and indeed opposed that movement in his paper, The Biblical Evangelist, and elsewhere. As evidence, here is what he said in the above mentioned pamphlet, The New Bible, An Appraisal of the Revised Standard Version: "No one of any intelligence, to my knowledge, would object to a new translation IF it is an HONEST translation" (p. 2, emphasis by Sumner).

This fundamentalist opposition to the RSV continued for many years. John R. Rice wrote against it as being a liberal version in 1969 in his magnum opus on inspiration, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible (p. 389). Again, Rice was never, ever KJVO.

 

[Logos1560]

In his 1967 book Let’s Study the Revelation, Hyles referred several times to the meaning of words in the original New Testament Greek to clarify the KJV’s rendering. According to Hyles, however, contrary to the 1967 references, he had always held the same position on the inspiration of the KJV but did not reveal his position to Rice out of respect. He wrote, “There were two or three things with which I did not agree with Dr. Rice, but I never told him” (Hyles, Fundamentalism in My Lifetime, 152). One of those “things” he alluded to was that the KJV was an inspired translation which should never be changed or corrected. (John R. Rice, by John R. Himes, p. 270).

Jack Hyles' very own 1967 book Let's Study the Revelation clearly contradicts his claim that tries to suggest that he held the same position on the inspiration of the KJV in 1967 as he advocated sometime after 1980.

Concerning Revelation 4:6, Jack Hyles wrote: "They are called 'beasts,' but the best translators call them 'living creatures'" (Let's Study the Revelation, p. 36).

Concerning Revelation 8:13, Jack Hyles wrote: "The word 'ANGEL' here should be 'eagle'" (p. 50).

Concerning Revelation 10:5-7, Jack Hyles wrote: "The angel declares that time (better translated 'delay') should be no longer" (p. 58).

Concerning Revelation 13:15, Jack Hyles wrote: "AND HE HAD POWER" is better translated, 'And to him was given power' (P. 72).

Concerning Revelation 20:13, Jack Hyles wrote: "The word 'HELL' really means 'Hades,' which is the place where the souls of unsaved people burn" (p. 110).

Concerning Revelation 22:13-14, Jack Hyles wrote: "'DO HIS COMMANDMENTS' should be translated 'wash their robes'" (pp. 116-117).

Jack Hyles' book ENEMIES OF SOUL WINNING with chapter 5 entitled "False Bibles--an enemy of soul winning" was published in 1993 after he changed his view.
The first printing of Jack Hyles' book entitled THE NEED FOR AN EVERY-WORD BIBLE was in 2003, after Jack Hyles (1926-2001) died.

 

[John of Japan]

Jack Hyles' book ENEMIES OF SOUL WINNING with chapter 5 entitled "False Bibles--an enemy of soul winning" was published in 1993 after he changed his view.
The first printing of Jack Hyles' book entitled THE NEED FOR AN EVERY-WORD BIBLE was in 2003, after Jack Hyles (1926-2001) died.

I have both of these, and they reveal a very radical position, as you know.

The second one was edited to leave out at least one very insulting statement.

 

[RobertB]

I voted maybe, but I don't really know. One can only hope. KJVOnlyism is utter madness. Easter?? Palestina?? Really??

I still encounter Ruckmanites too often. If only their passion and knowledge of what the Word of God actually teaches was on the same level as their zeal for worshipping an archaic translation.

Once had an argument with a KJVOnlyist who insisted the Septuagint was corrupt and fraudulent, added by the Catholics, and that only the Massoretic text was acceptable. So I asked him "why then does the author of Hebrews - in your KJV - quote exclusively from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew bible? Is Hebrews not inspired? The author thought the Septuagint was the word of God or he would not have quoted from it. Is the author mistaken?" Over time however, I found that arguing with these folks was kind of like arguing with a brick wall.

 

[JonC]

Thread closed due to length