KJV Opinion in 1955

[Salamander]

Meditations on Isaiah" by Charles and Norma Ellis . It was published by Banner of Truth in 1985 . Now that is a conservative organization by anyone's estimate .
The following is taken from part of the preface .

In 1976 , just after we had each read the preliminary NIV paperback translation of Isaiah , the idea for this book was conceived . We each felt that in this translation we had been given a glimpse fuller than before of the beauty of God and his truth . Although we were devoted to the Authorized Version , we felt that in the NIV God was speaking to the average reader in our day , even as he had been speaking to the average person in Isaiah's day .

"Feeeeeeelings, all I have is FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS!"raying:

 

[Askjo]

Most scholars ( many of whom are conservative ) believe that the TR is an inferior text .

They followed the naturalistic method.

 

[Salamander]

They followed the naturalistic method.

And then they could not be considered truly conservative, but LIBERAL!

Conservatives follow the TR line of MSS while liberals follow the CT line, at least when it comes to the Bible, that is.:wavey:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This was a decent thread - too decent to close.

I will continue to delete off topic posts. If posts disappear you have been warned.

 

[Rippon]

As I have repeatedly demonstrated , KJV Onlyism did not exist in the 1880's through the 1940's . And , most Fundamentalists in the 1950's did not hold to such an extreme and unwarranted position .

Any opinions to the contrary will have to document their findings as I have done . Don't just insist that you are right -- prove it .

 

[Pastor_Bob]

As I have repeatedly demonstrated , KJV Onlyism did not exist in the 1880's through the 1940's . And , most Fundamentalists in the 1950's did not hold to such an extreme and unwarranted position .

Any opinions to the contrary will have to document their findings as I have done . Don't just insist that you are right -- prove it .

Please define "KJV Onlyism" as you see it. That will help me to determine when it did begin. I do know that men have held the position I hold to long before the 1880's.

 

[Rippon]

Please define "KJV Onlyism" as you see it. That will help me to determine when it did begin. I do know that men have held the position I hold to long before the 1880's.

As a KJO PB you know very well what you believe . you are not as extreme as some of your movement , but far enough off the orthodox view of God's Word to warrant the label KJVO .
BTW , I specifically narrowed -down the scope to the time period of the 1880's-1940's . It's up to you to document that the modern heterodox view of KJVOism was present then .

 

[Salamander]

As a KJO PB you know very well what you believe . you are not as extreme as some of your movement , but far enough off the orthodox view of God's Word to warrant the label KJVO .
BTW , I specifically narrowed -down the scope to the time period of the 1880's-1940's . It's up to you to document that the modern heterodox view of KJVOism was present then .

Still "rippin".

Why don't you just answer his question?

My being "KJVO" by definition would incorporate the preservation of God's word as handed down by the true churches begun as according to the Book of Acts and prior. That would precede 1880 by at least 4280 years.:godisgood:

 

[Pastor_Bob]

you are not as extreme as some of your movement , but far enough off the orthodox view of God's Word to warrant the label KJVO .

Actually, my position was the orthodox view until the late 1800s. With very few exceptions, every Bible produced in any language followed the Byzantine text type.

BTW , I specifically narrowed -down the scope to the time period of the 1880's-1940's . It's up to you to document that the modern heterodox view of KJVOism was present then .

That’s just it, I need for you to define what you believe the modern heterodox view is. If you are referring to the extreme, radical element of KJVOs, then that is not a fair representation of the whole. Therefore, it really doesn’t matter when it started because that position has never been validated by the majority of KJV proponents.

If you are referring to the position that the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people, based upon the belief that God promised to preserve His Word, and the belief that He chose to do so in the form of the Traditional Received Text, and that by virtue of derivative inspiration, the KJV is an inspired translation of the originals, then I would say that this position can be traced back to the early 1600s.

 

[Rippon]

Still Unanswered

As I have repeatedly demonstrated , KJV Onlyism did not exist in the 1880's through the 1940's . And , most Fundamentalists in the 1950's did not hold to such an extreme and unwarranted position .

Any opinions to the contrary will have to document their findings as I have done . Don't just insist that you are right -- prove it .

Deal with my post .

 

[Ed Edwards]

Please define "KJV Onlyism" as you see it. That will help me to determine when it did begin. I do know that men have held the position I hold to long before the 1880's.

Unfortunately KJV Onlyism is defined by radicals such as Ruckman & Pastor Riplinger not by sense makers like Pastor_Bob and folks who respect the KJV for what it is and don't demean the MVs for not being KJVs.