Few people know that Hudson Taylor worked on a Bible translation, a Chinese Bible revision into the dialect of the area he worked in. Was he KJVO? Not on your life!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
King James Onlyism and Missions
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
So, you were acquainted with ole "Hreb"? (I started calling him that because that's how he spelled it in several internet responses to me.) We used to discuss the KJVO myth in several now-defunct web sites.
Yes, he mimicked ole Rucky in many ways, including caustic language at times, Typical cut-n-paste absolutely-wrong KJVO. Wonder how many boxes of Cracker-Jacks he ate before he found one with a doctorate degree?
Yeah, I have his nasty pamphlet.
Hey, maybe I need to start buying Cracker Jacks for a doctorate. It'd be a lot cheaper than the degree I'm working on, and a lot less homework.
I heard somewhere that Mr. Ruckman attended BJU. But, J of J, you are working on a doctorate? Im-pres-sive. Who would have known?
On another note, I am having a hard time figuring out how ones insults are worse than anothers. Ole Hreb and ole Rucky? Who are they? It seems to me there is plenty of hypocrisy on these forums but I guess when we are friends we don't really notice.
Megachurch pastor (1st BC of Hammond, IN) Jack Hyles (1926-2001) preached with my grandfather, John R. Rice, in Sword of the Lord conferences on soul-winning and revival for decades.
These were not Bible conferences. The two did not do Bible conferences. Rice felt that such conferences majored on the minors, and that the man of God should be concentrating on obeying the Great Commission, which is the last command of our Savior Jesus Christ. I was even told at one time in the '70's that speakers were notified ahead of time that the topics must be on soul-winning and revival. One well-known preacher majored on health food in his message, and was reportedly not invited back.
John R. Rice died in 1980, and Jack became KJVO not long after that. Rice was never, ever KJVO, and even recommended the ASV for study, though he never preached from it. However, when Jack went KJVO, he went all the way, believing not only in a perfect KJV, but that no one could get saved without it. (For documentation, see Ch. 15 in John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the Twentieth Century | On to Victory Press).
These were not Bible conferences. The two did not do Bible conferences. Rice felt that such conferences majored on the minors, and that the man of God should be concentrating on obeying the Great Commission, which is the last command of our Savior Jesus Christ. I was even told at one time in the '70's that speakers were notified ahead of time that the topics must be on soul-winning and revival. One well-known preacher majored on health food in his message, and was reportedly not invited back.
John R. Rice died in 1980, and Jack became KJVO not long after that. Rice was never, ever KJVO, and even recommended the ASV for study, though he never preached from it. However, when Jack went KJVO, he went all the way, believing not only in a perfect KJV, but that no one could get saved without it. (For documentation, see Ch. 15 in John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the Twentieth Century | On to Victory Press).
Now, to be honest, Hyles had never been very strong on missions. His church's support for us was way under the average. Then once when I preached on furlough in Training Union there, he took up an offering "all for the missionary," which we never saw. So someone at that ministry--I don't know who--stole thousands of dollars from a missionary.
After turning into a radical KJVO defender, his attitude towards missions did not improve. In fact, when he was accused of immorality, he sent out a letter to all the missionaries his church supported demanding we sign a postcard which said, "Dear Dr. Hyles: I believe in the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Hyles-Anderson College, and the leadership of these institutions. Not only am I not disloyal to the First Baptist church of Hammond, to Hyles-Anderson College and to the leadership of these institutions, but I openly defend them when attacked. I do not believe the rumors that have been spread about these institutions and their leaders.”
Of course I did not sign it. No Baptist church should exercise control over missionaries to that extent. After I refused to sign the card, in the follow-up Hyles wrote, questioning my character, "I received your letter concerning your unwillingness to sign the statement. Either you did not understand the card or you’re dodging the issue. At no place on the card do I ask you to make a statement of loyalty, though I did not agree with your unwillingness to do so. Over and over again I declared my loyalty to your dear grandfather and would have died for him in a moment. Again, let me say that you were not asked to sign a statement of loyalty; you were asked to send a statement of not being disloyal...." Really? How is a "statement of not being disloyal" not a statement of loyalty?
At any rate, this illustrates the decline in a burden for worldwide missions at First Baptist of Hammond--ironically until Hyles died and his son-in-law Jack Schaap took over. Now Schaap was not only not as radical on the KJV as Hyles was, he had a far greater burden for missions, starting a mission board (which has grown greatly) and writing a pamphlet delineating his missiology. Then he went and took a minor girl across the state lines for wicked purposes and got sent to the penitentiary, just recently being released. (Thus the word I used above, "ironically.")
After turning into a radical KJVO defender, his attitude towards missions did not improve. In fact, when he was accused of immorality, he sent out a letter to all the missionaries his church supported demanding we sign a postcard which said, "Dear Dr. Hyles: I believe in the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Hyles-Anderson College, and the leadership of these institutions. Not only am I not disloyal to the First Baptist church of Hammond, to Hyles-Anderson College and to the leadership of these institutions, but I openly defend them when attacked. I do not believe the rumors that have been spread about these institutions and their leaders.”
Of course I did not sign it. No Baptist church should exercise control over missionaries to that extent. After I refused to sign the card, in the follow-up Hyles wrote, questioning my character, "I received your letter concerning your unwillingness to sign the statement. Either you did not understand the card or you’re dodging the issue. At no place on the card do I ask you to make a statement of loyalty, though I did not agree with your unwillingness to do so. Over and over again I declared my loyalty to your dear grandfather and would have died for him in a moment. Again, let me say that you were not asked to sign a statement of loyalty; you were asked to send a statement of not being disloyal...." Really? How is a "statement of not being disloyal" not a statement of loyalty?
At any rate, this illustrates the decline in a burden for worldwide missions at First Baptist of Hammond--ironically until Hyles died and his son-in-law Jack Schaap took over. Now Schaap was not only not as radical on the KJV as Hyles was, he had a far greater burden for missions, starting a mission board (which has grown greatly) and writing a pamphlet delineating his missiology. Then he went and took a minor girl across the state lines for wicked purposes and got sent to the penitentiary, just recently being released. (Thus the word I used above, "ironically.")
Last edited:
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Many pastor friends of mine received that lecherous postcard, and most of them replied by calling FBCH/HAC so they could tell him over the phone that they didn't believe in him or even trust him. Thank the Lord that the President of Maranatha, Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm was able to start seeing through the stunts Hyles was pulling and took him off the board of the college the year he stepped down as President of that then college, and announced that Arno Q. Weniger would be the president, and he would be the President Emeritus and Chancellor of the college. To many in our college, Hyles was a joke, and he proved it when he came and spoke in chapel. When he was finished, and he was standing with a bunch of student, myself included, talking about the many reasons we should leave MBBC, and go to HAC....a self-serving, self-promoting idiot IMHO. He was his own "god."
Now, oddly enough, even after he turned KJVO, Jack Hyles had an apparent habit of making up meanings for Biblical words. He did have Hebrew and Greek training at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, which he graduated from if my memory serves me. But here's an example. In his book defending the KJV (or rather attacking anyone who did not), he commented on Ezekiel 34:19 by saying, "That word 'fouled' means 'you have caused it to stink'" (The Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 149). That sounds like he made it up, but it's wrong. The Hebrew word mirpâś there actually means, "muddled by trampling" (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by William Lee Holladay, accessed through BibleWorks software).
So here we have a KJVO pastor apparently making up the meaning for a Hebrew word, even though he advocated for a perfect translation. He did something similar also for Greek words occasionally, but I won't go into that.
So here we have a KJVO pastor apparently making up the meaning for a Hebrew word, even though he advocated for a perfect translation. He did something similar also for Greek words occasionally, but I won't go into that.
Last edited:
Would have cost too much in those days to call Hyles from Japan. And for the whippersnappers here, email was not available in those days.
Here is a quote from my book, John R. Rice, The Last Revivalist of the 20th Century (pp. 271-272):
"Though strongly opposing divorce, he embraced the teachings of twice divorced Peter Ruckman (Webmaster, “The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible” (The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the KJV, accessed on 8/4/17) 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.' (Matthew Lee Lyon, “John R. Rice and Evangelism: An Essential Mark of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism.” Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, PhD dissertation, 2019, 31-32.)
"Though strongly opposing divorce, he embraced the teachings of twice divorced Peter Ruckman (Webmaster, “The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible” (The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the KJV, accessed on 8/4/17) 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.' (Matthew Lee Lyon, “John R. Rice and Evangelism: An Essential Mark of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism.” Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, PhD dissertation, 2019, 31-32.)
To show how far Hyles went in his KJO position, here is another quote from my book (272-273):
"In a Wednesday night Bible study at First Baptist in 1998 ('Keep your Stinkin’ Feet Out of My Drinking Water'), Hyles said, 'Don't come to me with your stinking ‘only the original is inspired’! You’re not intellectual, you’re retarded!' Sadly, by this point in his ministry, Hyles had descended to mocking Rice, calling him 'retarded' for the beliefs that he held.
"One scholar points to this issue as the watershed in the ministry of Hyles, the time when he separated himself from his former mentor: 'Having been freed from Rice’s restraining influence, he quickly rejected Rice’s views…. Thus, Hyles would call anyone who used another version a liberal, making the King James Version a non-negotiable, and eliminating Rice from the new version of fundamentalism.'”[2]
[1] This is from an MP3 file of the sermon at “Keep Your Stinking Feet Out of My Drinking Water” by Jack Hyles – Jack Hyles Podcast, accessed on 1/8/21. The offending statement is at 32 minutes. This sermon series was eventually printed as a book, The Need for an Every-Word Bible (Hammond: Hyles Publications, 2003), 154-155. This particular sermon was heavily edited in the book, however, and the statement using the term “retarded” was edited, taking out the derogatory attack.
[2] Lyon, op cit, 34-35.
"In a Wednesday night Bible study at First Baptist in 1998 ('Keep your Stinkin’ Feet Out of My Drinking Water'), Hyles said, 'Don't come to me with your stinking ‘only the original is inspired’! You’re not intellectual, you’re retarded!' Sadly, by this point in his ministry, Hyles had descended to mocking Rice, calling him 'retarded' for the beliefs that he held.
"One scholar points to this issue as the watershed in the ministry of Hyles, the time when he separated himself from his former mentor: 'Having been freed from Rice’s restraining influence, he quickly rejected Rice’s views…. Thus, Hyles would call anyone who used another version a liberal, making the King James Version a non-negotiable, and eliminating Rice from the new version of fundamentalism.'”[2]
[1] This is from an MP3 file of the sermon at “Keep Your Stinking Feet Out of My Drinking Water” by Jack Hyles – Jack Hyles Podcast, accessed on 1/8/21. The offending statement is at 32 minutes. This sermon series was eventually printed as a book, The Need for an Every-Word Bible (Hammond: Hyles Publications, 2003), 154-155. This particular sermon was heavily edited in the book, however, and the statement using the term “retarded” was edited, taking out the derogatory attack.
[2] Lyon, op cit, 34-35.
So my point about Jack Hyles is that the further he went into KJVO belief, the less he did with missions, not that he had ever done much with missions. The only record I've found of him visiting a mission field is that he went with John R. Rice to preach a Sword conference in Japan in 1968. I have the authorized biography of Hyles by his daughter, and there is nothing about any other mission field he visited. And as for the missionaries his church supported (including me), he tried to get us to be his 100% followers. That's hardly a Great Commission action.
But as he got more radical, he narrowed his view of evangelism considerably so that he believed only the KJV could get people saved. He wrote, "I have more respect for the person who says that one of the false Bibles [anything other than the KJV--JoJ] contains the very words of God than for a person who says only the original contains the very words of God" (Enemies of Soul Winning, 1993, p. 44).
But as he got more radical, he narrowed his view of evangelism considerably so that he believed only the KJV could get people saved. He wrote, "I have more respect for the person who says that one of the false Bibles [anything other than the KJV--JoJ] contains the very words of God than for a person who says only the original contains the very words of God" (Enemies of Soul Winning, 1993, p. 44).
I am currently writing a book with the working title, Unsung Christian Soldiers. Some of you old timers may remember a couple of threads I did years ago with stories of unknown Christians, and I'm taking those stories, rewriting them and adding to them, and hopefully will be finished shortly. It should be published by the ministry that published my bio of John R. Rice. Here is one of those threads: Unusual Soul Winners. Here is another: Unsung Missionaries
At any rate, for a chapter on "Uncle John" Vassar, a truly great soul winner, I'm reading the biography Uncle John Vassar by Thomas Vassar, and came across a statement that says eloquently what I've been trying to say here: "The inspired Word was the book he studied most. It was to him exactly what it claims to be--'the sword of the Spirit'; and what was the hilt, and what was the haft, and what the blade, and how to get hold of the one and smite with the other, was what he sought to know. The authenticity of Scripture he never stopped to argue. He boldly assumed that, and then by it utterances every opinion must be hewed and squared" (p. 159).
Again, you do not defend a sword, you go out and fight with it!
At any rate, for a chapter on "Uncle John" Vassar, a truly great soul winner, I'm reading the biography Uncle John Vassar by Thomas Vassar, and came across a statement that says eloquently what I've been trying to say here: "The inspired Word was the book he studied most. It was to him exactly what it claims to be--'the sword of the Spirit'; and what was the hilt, and what was the haft, and what the blade, and how to get hold of the one and smite with the other, was what he sought to know. The authenticity of Scripture he never stopped to argue. He boldly assumed that, and then by it utterances every opinion must be hewed and squared" (p. 159).
Again, you do not defend a sword, you go out and fight with it!
Last edited:
Now, consider what is glorified in missions and what is glorified by a KJV Onliest who is actively defending the KJV.
We are told by Paul, "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). Fulfilling Christ's last command, the Great Commission, definitely glorifies God. It is all about Jesus Christ. The Bible says in John 13, "31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." So our goal should always be to glorify the Son, and we do that by prayer, by testimony, by winning souls to Christ, by obeying the Great Commission, and in other ways.
Concerning the subject, note especially this Scripture in the next chapter of John: "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples" (John 15:21). The fruit of a Christian is another Christian, a soul saved. So if I throw a KJVO conference, will that happen? Very unlikely.
What is glorified in web pages I've linked to in this thread is not Christ, but the KJV. Glorifiying anything or anyone other that God, in particular His Son Jesus Christ, is disobedience, usually disobedience to the Great Commission.
Here are the only two places in the whole Bible where the words "glory" and "word" appear, and both of them are talking about glorifying Jesus!
John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Heb. 1:3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
How about majoring on Jesus as the perfect Word?
We are told by Paul, "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). Fulfilling Christ's last command, the Great Commission, definitely glorifies God. It is all about Jesus Christ. The Bible says in John 13, "31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." So our goal should always be to glorify the Son, and we do that by prayer, by testimony, by winning souls to Christ, by obeying the Great Commission, and in other ways.
Concerning the subject, note especially this Scripture in the next chapter of John: "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples" (John 15:21). The fruit of a Christian is another Christian, a soul saved. So if I throw a KJVO conference, will that happen? Very unlikely.
What is glorified in web pages I've linked to in this thread is not Christ, but the KJV. Glorifiying anything or anyone other that God, in particular His Son Jesus Christ, is disobedience, usually disobedience to the Great Commission.
Here are the only two places in the whole Bible where the words "glory" and "word" appear, and both of them are talking about glorifying Jesus!
John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Heb. 1:3, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
How about majoring on Jesus as the perfect Word?
Right now I am at our seminary retreat at a wonderful Christian camp. This morning Pastor gave a devotional from Revelation 1:10-16, and I realized that in v. 16 John showed together the Living Word Jesus and the written Word, a two-edged sword. Look at v. 16 for the sword. Then Jesus said in vv. 17-18, "Defend this Sword!" right? (And by the way, that sword did not represent the KJV, even though many ministries portray Christ on a white horse waving a KJV sword. That is not Biblical.)
Nope, He said, "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."
We are to glorify and proclaim the risen Christ through His Word. We are not to glorify the Word. It comes from Christ, but is not equal to or greater than Christ. So when someone writes a book or has a conference or has a website glorifying the written Word in a translation, the KJV, they are totally missing the point of ministry. A godly, Biblical ministry is Christ honoring, not KJV honoring.
Nope, He said, "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."
We are to glorify and proclaim the risen Christ through His Word. We are not to glorify the Word. It comes from Christ, but is not equal to or greater than Christ. So when someone writes a book or has a conference or has a website glorifying the written Word in a translation, the KJV, they are totally missing the point of ministry. A godly, Biblical ministry is Christ honoring, not KJV honoring.
Okay, I'm almost done here, unless someone responds. I'm about ready to sum it up.
Now consider this. The major leaders of the KJVO movement include: Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, D. A. Waite, the men of the so-called King James Research Council, and others. I have gone on this thread to a number of their websites, and shown that there is little about missions or evangelism on them. So what is there?
We have always been about defending the Gospel, as the apostle Paul did in Phillippians 1:7 and 17:
Phil. 1:7, "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace."
Phil. 1:17, "But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel."
In defending the Gospel, we fight against the cults and heresies: JW's, Mormons, Moonies, Catholics, etc. But the KJVO movement does not fight for the Gospel, it fights for a translation. Thus, most KJVO defenders end up opposing not the cults and heresies but--wait for it--other believers in Christ! So it is divisive among born again people. Nuff said.
Now consider this. The major leaders of the KJVO movement include: Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, D. A. Waite, the men of the so-called King James Research Council, and others. I have gone on this thread to a number of their websites, and shown that there is little about missions or evangelism on them. So what is there?
We have always been about defending the Gospel, as the apostle Paul did in Phillippians 1:7 and 17:
Phil. 1:7, "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace."
Phil. 1:17, "But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel."
In defending the Gospel, we fight against the cults and heresies: JW's, Mormons, Moonies, Catholics, etc. But the KJVO movement does not fight for the Gospel, it fights for a translation. Thus, most KJVO defenders end up opposing not the cults and heresies but--wait for it--other believers in Christ! So it is divisive among born again people. Nuff said.
Even KJV defenders realize that the doctrine is divisive. Note the following essay by Phil Stringer: The King James Only Baptist Civil War over Inspiration
While decrying divisions in the KJVO movement over the meaning of "inspiration," Stringer actually says he had to write against things said by other KJVO men and organizations, such a the Trinitarian Bible Society, and Dr. Charles Keen (a godly missionary statesman who I think he misrepresents).
By the way, Phil points out something interesting and yet appalling. A missionary Bible translator told him that his translation was "inspired," but then is bringing out a second edition of his work! That's just bizarre.
While decrying divisions in the KJVO movement over the meaning of "inspiration," Stringer actually says he had to write against things said by other KJVO men and organizations, such a the Trinitarian Bible Society, and Dr. Charles Keen (a godly missionary statesman who I think he misrepresents).
By the way, Phil points out something interesting and yet appalling. A missionary Bible translator told him that his translation was "inspired," but then is bringing out a second edition of his work! That's just bizarre.
Last edited:
I've just been listening to this message, which is pertinent to the thread: Should We Sacrifice the Purity of the Bible on the Altar of Soulwinning - Pastor Manny Rodriguez.
At 24 minutes, Rodriguez makes the statement, "We cannot sacrifice the purity of Scriptures on the altar of soul-winning." Then he says that as important as soul-winning is, "It's not the only subject in the Bible." So, in his message he elevates the defense of the KJV to the same level as fulfilling the Great Commission. As a former missionary, he should know better. As a missionary, I spent many hours studying the Great Commission, evangelizing the Japanese, and also teaching it in the Bible school I was involved with in the "Personal Evangelism" course. I completely disagree with the idea that defending the KJV is as important as winning souls to Christ.
The Great Commission was given five times by our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-49, John 20:21-22, Acts of the Apostles 1:8). Since we are not commanded by Jesus one single time to defend His Word, this makes obeying the Great Commission far, far more important than some imagined "KJV Defense Commission."
At 24 minutes, Rodriguez makes the statement, "We cannot sacrifice the purity of Scriptures on the altar of soul-winning." Then he says that as important as soul-winning is, "It's not the only subject in the Bible." So, in his message he elevates the defense of the KJV to the same level as fulfilling the Great Commission. As a former missionary, he should know better. As a missionary, I spent many hours studying the Great Commission, evangelizing the Japanese, and also teaching it in the Bible school I was involved with in the "Personal Evangelism" course. I completely disagree with the idea that defending the KJV is as important as winning souls to Christ.
The Great Commission was given five times by our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-49, John 20:21-22, Acts of the Apostles 1:8). Since we are not commanded by Jesus one single time to defend His Word, this makes obeying the Great Commission far, far more important than some imagined "KJV Defense Commission."
I'll close by summing up.
1. There is no command in Scripture to defend a Bible translation. I didn't say this in the thread, but there have been various "Onlyism" movements down through the centuries: Old Latin Onlyism in the century Jerome translated the Vulgate; Vulgate Onlyism in the Catholic religion during the reformation; Luther's Translation Onlyism in Germany; Classical Japanese Bible Onlyism in Japan; Chinese Union Version Onlyism in China; etc. None of these had a command in the Bible to defend their translation.
2. We are Scripturally responsible to defend the Gospel. But the Gospel is not the same as the Bible; certainly not the same as a Bible translation.
3. We have five versions of the Great Commission. Our main task as Christians is to glorify God (not to glorify a Bible translation). One of the best ways to do that is getting the Gospel to all people, thus obeying the last command of Christ.
4. You can't be all about defending the KJV and at the same time be all about obeying the Great Commission. Manny Rodriguez of the King James Bible Research Council put defending the Bible on the same level as winning souls. But again, there is no command in the Bible to defend any Bible translation. The Bible is a sword, not a museum piece. Go out and stab someone with it!
5. There are many good KJVO people who love missions and seek to obey the Great Commission. Some of them are dear friends of mine. This thread was not about them. This thread was about the people who have the conferences, write the books, have the websites. They are wasting their time, doing something that God never commanded. I have linked to the websites of people like D. A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, the King James Bible Research Council, and shown that they have very little about reaching the world for Christ on their websites.
So my advice? Go out and do some soul-winning, like my wife and I did yesterday. Hand out a tract to someone, like I did Saturday at our coffee shop (and got told they don't like the mention of Hell). Send an offering off to support a missionary Bible society, or a printing organization like Bearing Precious Seed or Victory Baptist Press. Write an email of encouragement to a missionary. Pray for missionaries and other soul winners. (My wife and I have a stack of prayer cards we pray through before bedtime.) Pray for the salvation of your loved ones and friends.
Do something God commanded. Stab the Devil with the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God!
P. S. I'm just amazed at the opposition to this thread that appeared. Apparently I'm carnal because I put the Great Commission of Jesus Christ above the defense of the KJV. Go figure.
1. There is no command in Scripture to defend a Bible translation. I didn't say this in the thread, but there have been various "Onlyism" movements down through the centuries: Old Latin Onlyism in the century Jerome translated the Vulgate; Vulgate Onlyism in the Catholic religion during the reformation; Luther's Translation Onlyism in Germany; Classical Japanese Bible Onlyism in Japan; Chinese Union Version Onlyism in China; etc. None of these had a command in the Bible to defend their translation.
2. We are Scripturally responsible to defend the Gospel. But the Gospel is not the same as the Bible; certainly not the same as a Bible translation.
3. We have five versions of the Great Commission. Our main task as Christians is to glorify God (not to glorify a Bible translation). One of the best ways to do that is getting the Gospel to all people, thus obeying the last command of Christ.
4. You can't be all about defending the KJV and at the same time be all about obeying the Great Commission. Manny Rodriguez of the King James Bible Research Council put defending the Bible on the same level as winning souls. But again, there is no command in the Bible to defend any Bible translation. The Bible is a sword, not a museum piece. Go out and stab someone with it!
5. There are many good KJVO people who love missions and seek to obey the Great Commission. Some of them are dear friends of mine. This thread was not about them. This thread was about the people who have the conferences, write the books, have the websites. They are wasting their time, doing something that God never commanded. I have linked to the websites of people like D. A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, the King James Bible Research Council, and shown that they have very little about reaching the world for Christ on their websites.
So my advice? Go out and do some soul-winning, like my wife and I did yesterday. Hand out a tract to someone, like I did Saturday at our coffee shop (and got told they don't like the mention of Hell). Send an offering off to support a missionary Bible society, or a printing organization like Bearing Precious Seed or Victory Baptist Press. Write an email of encouragement to a missionary. Pray for missionaries and other soul winners. (My wife and I have a stack of prayer cards we pray through before bedtime.) Pray for the salvation of your loved ones and friends.
Do something God commanded. Stab the Devil with the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God!
P. S. I'm just amazed at the opposition to this thread that appeared. Apparently I'm carnal because I put the Great Commission of Jesus Christ above the defense of the KJV. Go figure.
Last edited:
Two things are wrong in this entire thread.
1 John of Japan has consistently failed to elucidate what the "Great Commission" is... and, while he's spoken in detail of the "soul-winning" passion of his grampa. (we know this, he's preached it constantly for decades now).
John has spoken passionately about "soul-winning".
That is absolutely NOT the "Great Commission".
2.) John has argued passionately that a "KJVO" belief is inherently adverse to missions....It simply does not follow that it is.
Now, allow me to "Pipe in" for about three seconds:
I'm NOT KJVO. I used to be.
The KJVO Church I belonged to gave over $ 250,000.00 to foreign missions every year.
It was a church of less than 400 people.
I can send you the link to said Church: Great Hope Baptist Church
I no longer belong to it.
I am no longer KJVO only.
I know that JOJ has spent an innumerable amount of time suggesting that KJVO Churches are wasting their time by being KJVO.
He has never once Suggested that Logos 1560 (who does nothing whatsoever but lambast KJVO)....
Is accomplishing nothing for the Great Commission (he isn't, he's spent his life battling a non-issue)
The KJVO only crowd is so small and irrelevant at this point that it's pathetic to argue with them.
Leave them alone.
Let them be....
And John..You've talked about "Soul-winning" over and over and over in this thread.
And you've failed to elucidate to the readers that that is NOT the "Great Commission".
You're so dedicated to attacking the KJVO folks (like LOGOS 1560 who spends his life doing it and nothing else).
That you've failed to appreciate that "Soul-winning" isn't the "Great Commission".
Correctly define the "Great Commission" (you could use an NIV if you feel like it ) and then you have an argument.
So far, you have failed to correctly define it.
1
John of Japan has consistently failed to elucidate what the "Great Commission" is... and, while he's spoken in detail of the "soul-winning" passion of his grampa. (we know this, he's preached it constantly for decades now).John has spoken passionately about "soul-winning".
That is absolutely NOT the "Great Commission".
2.) John has argued passionately that a "KJVO" belief is inherently adverse to missions....It simply does not follow that it is.
Now, allow me to "Pipe in" for about three seconds:
I'm NOT KJVO. I used to be.
The KJVO Church I belonged to gave over $ 250,000.00 to foreign missions every year.
It was a church of less than 400 people.
I can send you the link to said Church: Great Hope Baptist Church
I no longer belong to it.
I am no longer KJVO only.
I know that JOJ has spent an innumerable amount of time suggesting that KJVO Churches are wasting their time by being KJVO.
He has never once Suggested that Logos 1560 (who does nothing whatsoever but lambast KJVO)....
Is accomplishing nothing for the Great Commission (he isn't, he's spent his life battling a non-issue)
The KJVO only crowd is so small and irrelevant at this point that it's pathetic to argue with them.
Leave them alone.
Let them be....
And John..You've talked about "Soul-winning" over and over and over in this thread.
And you've failed to elucidate to the readers that that is NOT the "Great Commission".
You're so dedicated to attacking the KJVO folks (like LOGOS 1560 who spends his life doing it and nothing else).
That you've failed to appreciate that "Soul-winning" isn't the "Great Commission".
Correctly define the "Great Commission" (you could use an NIV if you feel like it
) and then you have an argument.So far, you have failed to correctly define it.
- Status