How would you rate this KJO movement article on Wiki?
-
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!
KJO Movement
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Not very comprehensive. It doesn't highlight the extremism of the KJV Onlyist viewpoint, though it does mention the radical views of some of them. Not enough, however, to give a clear picture of what the movement is about.
Then again, is anyone really sure what the movement is about? Sure, it's about the KJV being the "best." But to what purpose, other than to make its adherents feel superior about their personal decisions to buy a KJV Bible?
Then again, is anyone really sure what the movement is about? Sure, it's about the KJV being the "best." But to what purpose, other than to make its adherents feel superior about their personal decisions to buy a KJV Bible?
Actually, it's not about the KJV being the "best", it's about it being the "only". Therefore, all modern versions are corrupted because they don't come from the Textus Receptus.
Actually, the "Movement" is to totally discredit ANY other greek text save for TR, so MT/CT are both corrupted, and any versions coming off from them would be "satanic influenced!"
Your first sentence is correct. But your last setence is wrong. The NKJV and some other minor Bible translations are also based on the TR,but that's not enough for a true blue KJVO. Their "Bible" has to be a KJV.They may say it's the 1611 on their church signs,but it's usually the 1769 edition with modifications.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Not all KJV Onlyists adhere to this false concept. The movement faithful come in a wide number of varieties.
I don't much care for James White, but he has provided a useful breakdown of the varieties and types of KJV Onlyists.
- "I Like the KJV Best" – Although White lists this point of view as an aspect of the KJVO group, this is disputed by others. This group simply regards the KJV as a very good translation and prefers it over other translations because the church they attend uses it, has always used it or prefers its style.
- "The Textual Argument" – This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual bases are more accurate than the alternate texts used by newer translations. Many in this group might accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a member of this group. However, Hodges considers that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text as seen, for example, in the Majority Text textual apparatus of the New King James Version. The Trinitarian Bible Society fits in this division, but "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorized Version (KJV) to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language," and "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."
- "Received Text Only" – Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally (or providentially) preserved. The KJV is believed to be an exemplary translation, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be of equal quality.
- "The Inspired KJV Group" – This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude other language versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only English Bible sanctioned by God.
- "The KJV As New Revelation" – This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-languages, Hebrew and Greek, can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.
Lets get back to the OP -
Is the Wiki article on the KJV Excellent (A) , Good (B), Fair (C) or Poor (D)
Is the Wiki article on the KJV Excellent (A) , Good (B), Fair (C) or Poor (D)
(B) Good...
Yes, the article is all right; it just doesn't go enough into depth.
As for the KJVO movement itself, the whole thing is phony as a Ford Corvette. Remember, it's derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book which was plagiarized by two dishonest authors.
It has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever, plus, its salient points have been proven wrong individually.
As for the KJVO movement itself, the whole thing is phony as a Ford Corvette. Remember, it's derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book which was plagiarized by two dishonest authors.
It has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT whatsoever, plus, its salient points have been proven wrong individually.
the problem is that through this Board, and thru personal experiences with them, it seems that a solid majority in the KJVO camp are ONLY in the last 2 groups listed!
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Yes, the article is brief but good. I give it B+.
I give it a D.
The true KJVO movement (from the beginning ala Peter Ruckman) is treated as a "Variation".
Back in 2001 when I joined the BB the major doctrines of dispute were : Secondary inspiration, Advanced revelation, The AD1611 English defines the Greek and Hebrew.
The movement began crumbling when it was shown that:
The First Edititon of the AD1611 AV contained the Apocrypha (a fly in the KJVO ointment) including citing apocryphal passages in the scripture chain references.
The mantra was "Things which are different are not the same" (e.g. KJV and NIV).
As each of these doctrine were shown to be absurd, the ad hominem attacks began.
We (non-KJVO) were all accused of having "hated" the word of God.
One KJVO fellow posted several pages of "You are all going to hell" hundreds of times over and over again.
The published statement (apart from the variations) is not the true KJVO position but a smoke screen.
I believe the phrase "things which are different are not the same" brought down the original KJVO movement when it was shown that the AD1611 and the AD1769 editions were "different". The ruckmanite KJVO camp divided over this discrepancy and we never heard this mantra again.
HankD
The true KJVO movement (from the beginning ala Peter Ruckman) is treated as a "Variation".
Back in 2001 when I joined the BB the major doctrines of dispute were : Secondary inspiration, Advanced revelation, The AD1611 English defines the Greek and Hebrew.
The movement began crumbling when it was shown that:
The First Edititon of the AD1611 AV contained the Apocrypha (a fly in the KJVO ointment) including citing apocryphal passages in the scripture chain references.
The mantra was "Things which are different are not the same" (e.g. KJV and NIV).
As each of these doctrine were shown to be absurd, the ad hominem attacks began.
We (non-KJVO) were all accused of having "hated" the word of God.
One KJVO fellow posted several pages of "You are all going to hell" hundreds of times over and over again.
The published statement (apart from the variations) is not the true KJVO position but a smoke screen.
I believe the phrase "things which are different are not the same" brought down the original KJVO movement when it was shown that the AD1611 and the AD1769 editions were "different". The ruckmanite KJVO camp divided over this discrepancy and we never heard this mantra again.
HankD
Last edited:
Well, actually, it's a lotta the same ole, same ole. For example, many KJVOs still cite the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie", which is taken straight outta Dr. Wilkinson's book, & had been proven false. They still holler that this or that version has omitted material, without being able to prove the material in question belonged in Scripture to begin with.
They still try to tell us that English was at its highest development level in 1611. They still try to tell us that the KJV is perfect in the face of its proven goofs & booboos.
As a generation of KJVOs fades away, or some of them see the TRUTH, a new generation arises, presenting the same ole hooey yet again, but there's also a new generation of Freedom Readers arising to oppose the KJVO myth, as well as the older ones such as myself still around.
What was false when Wilkinson, Ray, & fuller wrote their boox was still false when Ruckman, Riplinger, Melton, Grady, etc. wrote theirs. The KJVO myth is simply a cash cow for those latter authors who couldn't care less about the TRUTH.
The KJVO doctrine is a man-made myth, surviving on EXCUSES, not FACT or TRUTH. It's just another of Satan's attempts to discredit God's word.
They still try to tell us that English was at its highest development level in 1611. They still try to tell us that the KJV is perfect in the face of its proven goofs & booboos.
As a generation of KJVOs fades away, or some of them see the TRUTH, a new generation arises, presenting the same ole hooey yet again, but there's also a new generation of Freedom Readers arising to oppose the KJVO myth, as well as the older ones such as myself still around.
What was false when Wilkinson, Ray, & fuller wrote their boox was still false when Ruckman, Riplinger, Melton, Grady, etc. wrote theirs. The KJVO myth is simply a cash cow for those latter authors who couldn't care less about the TRUTH.
The KJVO doctrine is a man-made myth, surviving on EXCUSES, not FACT or TRUTH. It's just another of Satan's attempts to discredit God's word.
The NKJV has critical text readings and is not faithful to the TR
I probably fit in with either the textual argument or the received text argument myself.
It has not been proven that the NKJV has any Critical text readings in its NT text.
There is not one unchanging, established edition of the Textus Receptus. There were 20 to 30 varying editions of the Textus Receptus with some textual differences between them, and the makers of the KJV did not follow any one of the editions available to them 100% faithfully.
The makers of the KJV consulted, made use of, or were influenced by textually different sources, including some sources that are placed on the KJV-only view's bad, impure, or corrupt line of Bibles.
Please show us one.
Perhaps you refer to something like the following?
KJV 2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
RSV 2 Corinthians 6:12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.
NKJV 2 Corinthians 6:12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.
Just because the NKJV chooses the same modern words as a CT translation does not mean that it is unfaithful to the TR.
What is being faithful to the TR (by the NKJV) is including 1 John 5:7 which no MT that I know of includes in the body of the text.
In fact this the signature passage (1 John 5:7) to determine which original language text is being followed by a NT translation.
HankD
I'd like to see one as well. We can wait.
1st John 5:7 appears in 4 Greek MSS, and is in Latin MSS and is quoted by early church fathers.
here's a quote from John Wesley:
JOHN WESLEY commented on 1 John 5:7 saying: " I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one."
"As they lie in the text :" -- but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -- the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority: -- ( 2.) That it is cited by a whole gain of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world."
- Status