"KJVO" Beginnings

[Mongol Servant]

In a previous post, someone stated that the "KJVO position" was a relatively recent posture, having begun thru a book by a 7th Day Adventist named Wilkinson. It was further stated that J.J. Ray plagiarised Wilkinson's information in his book titled, "God Only Wrote One Bible", and that this information should be rejected simply because he was a 7thDA. I believe in the sanctity of life (pro-life) and so does the Roman Catholic church. Should I reject this position, and become pro-choice, simply because the RCC is pro-life? This is the same reasoning behind rejection of the material in Ray's book. However - the position of being a KJV supporter (KJVO) didn't begin recently, nor was it thru Ray's work. Dr Samuel Gipp has a book titled, "An Understandable History of the Bible," by DayStar Publishing, that has much information that was available before Ray (or Wilkinson) was born. Dr Douglas Stauffer has a book titled, "One Book Stands Alone," by McCowen Mills Publishers, that treats this subject with a very scholarly approach and has info that was available long before Ray was born. Dr William Grady has published, "Final Authority," by Grady Publications, which discusses much of the textual criticism issues that few desire to discuss, regarding the MVs.
A brother named Kevin James, has completed a very scholarly work titled, "The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship," published by Micro-Load Press HC 31, Box 92, Williamsburg, New Mexico 87942. ISBN: 0-9624420-0-3. Bro James is not a scholar, but was reading his Bible with his wife one evening, when he noticed that his version didn't agree with his wife's version. He started doing some research, and the book is his analysis. Let me also state, that ALL of these men are BAPTISTS !
The detailed material in each of these works is beyond reproach and has bibliographies that are worthy of a doctrinal thesis.
Has anyone else discovered other material published before Ray or Wilkinson, that details a KJB supporting position? Please give your exposure/experience and not more opinions from the KJV-naysayers (Kutilek, Norris, et al.). :1_grouphug:

"The value of the partisan is not in the amount of men and equipment he destroys, but in how many he keeps watching." COL John S. Moseby, CSA

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We do not normally allow discussions of the KJVO movement and to be honest I don't hold out much hope for the future of this one.

However, since MS is a new member and this could be a reasonable discussion if both sides will avoid inflammatory comments, we will let it run.

Be forewarned - there will be no room for inflammatory comments or personal attacks. It will be closed without warning if such appear.

Please keep your comments limited to a discussion or the origins of the "KJVO" movement - anything else will be snipped without notice.

 

[John of Japan]

In a previous post, someone stated that the "KJVO position" was a relatively recent posture, having begun thru a book by a 7th Day Adventist named Wilkinson. It was further stated that J.J. Ray plagiarised Wilkinson's information in his book titled, "God Only Wrote One Bible", and that this information should be rejected simply because he was a 7thDA. I believe in the sanctity of life (pro-life) and so does the Roman Catholic church. Should I reject this position, and become pro-choice, simply because the RCC is pro-life? This is the same reasoning behind rejection of the material in Ray's book. However - the position of being a KJV supporter (KJVO) didn't begin recently, nor was it thru Ray's work. Dr Samuel Gipp has a book titled, "An Understandable History of the Bible," by DayStar Publishing, that has much information that was available before Ray (or Wilkinson) was born. Dr Douglas Stauffer has a book titled, "One Book Stands Alone," by McCowen Mills Publishers, that treats this subject with a very scholarly approach and has info that was available long before Ray was born. Dr William Grady has published, "Final Authority," by Grady Publications, which discusses much of the textual criticism issues that few desire to discuss, regarding the MVs.
A brother named Kevin James, has completed a very scholarly work titled, "The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship," published by Micro-Load Press HC 31, Box 92, Williamsburg, New Mexico 87942. ISBN: 0-9624420-0-3. Bro James is not a scholar, but was reading his Bible with his wife one evening, when he noticed that his version didn't agree with his wife's version. He started doing some research, and the book is his analysis. Let me also state, that ALL of these men are BAPTISTS !
The detailed material in each of these works is beyond reproach and has bibliographies that are worthy of a doctrinal thesis.
Has anyone else discovered other material published before Ray or Wilkinson, that details a KJB supporting position? Please give your exposure/experience and not more opinions from the KJV-naysayers (Kutilek, Norris, et al.). :1_grouphug:

"The value of the partisan is not in the amount of men and equipment he destroys, but in how many he keeps watching." COL John S. Moseby, CSA

I don't plan to comment on all the books you have listed, though I have a couple of them. I will simply give the historical facts as one who lived through them. I grew up in Fundamentalism in the 1950's and 1960's, and nobody in the IFB movement before 1970, I mean nobody, felt the need to defend the KJV. It was simply assumed the KJV could defend itself.

Until 1970, knowledgeable fundamentalists attacked liberal or poor translations rather than defending the KJV. So, for example, John R. Rice attacked the RSV in the Sword of the Lord when it came out in the 1950's. Again, Ian Paisley wrote a pamphlet against the New English Bible NT when it came out in 1961. Having grown up in the IFB movement, the first I ever heard the KJV being defended was in about 1973 at TTU, where Dr. Lee Roberson announced in chapel that no more discussions would be allowed on campus about the issue.

In 1970, two books came out that I believe launched the KJV-only movement: The Christian's Book of Manuscript Evidence by Peter Ruckman, and Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller. (Believing Bible Study by Edward Hills, a Presbyterian, came out in 1967, but had not nearly the influence of the other two.) Fuller's book included the complete book by Wilkinson which you have mentioned. Until then it was unknown to Fundamentalists since he was SDA, something Fuller did not mention in his book.

This is not to say that there was no discussion of the manuscript issues until 1970. The controversy on that goes way back, and I would consider its modern genesis to be in about 1880 when Dean Burgon began opposing Westcott and Hort. But actual defenses of the KJV among Fundamentalists began in 1970, as stated above.

And there you have it: a capsule history from one who lived through it.

God bless. :type:

P. S. Welcome to the Baptist Board.

 

[robycop3]

Mongol, there were occasional comments made by certain 19th C. writers here and there, but there was no KJVO movement among the English-speaking general public, especially in the USA. The first real argument even remotely resembling KJVO began among the Anglicans, and consisted mostly of a denunciation of Westcott & Hort's work by Dean John Burgon. (While some people have made Burgon a hero for this, even founding a "Dean Burgon Society", they ignore the fact that he had some equally-scathing commentary against the Textus receptus!)

While the KJV had a virtual monopoly among English Bible readers for a long time, we cannot sit back & say the people of those days wouldn'ta been open to accepting other versions. However, no one made any serious attenpt to promote & market another English version untio the British "Revised Version" of 1885, which is a rather groddy translation. (The American "ASV" is the USA version of the RV with USA English.) And I do NOT recall any earlier writer who could be taken with more than a grain of salt saying that the KJV was the final English version, that God had closed the door on any further English translations being made. (The AV translators CERTAINLY made no such statements!)

When Wilkinson wrote his 1930 book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, he wasn't trying to start a new doctrine. He was writing in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. His book is a collection of mosta the pro-KJV commentary of earlier writers, much of which is error. His book received little attention outside the SDA cult & certainly didn't ignite any KJVO doctrine. But as the making of new versions grew, a person calling him(or her)self "J. J. Ray" discovered that book & published "God Wrote Only One Bible" in 1955. It's a repeat of a large portion of Wilkinson's book. Don't believe it? Take time to read both boox, beginning with W's!

This was followed by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's Bible Babel in 1964. While this gent is known for many kooky ideas of his own, and for making some false prophecies, he, too, copied largely from W's book. At least he gave W some credit. But then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller wrote Which Bible?, in which he also copies heavily from W while attempting to hide his CULT AFFILIATION. (W died in 1968.) Virtually every KJVO book that followed copies at least in part from the boox I've just mentioned.

A common thread running through almost all these boox is their citation of the "Psalm 12:7 thingie". This idea originated in the 19th century, & found its way into Wilkinson's book, & is found in almost every KJVO publication of today. One little prob with this premise: IT'S FALSE! It was false when it was first conceived & is false today. AND HERE'S PROOF! Just open a repro AV 1611(Or an authentic one if you have access) to the verse in question. beside the 2nd them you'll see a little dagger, a punctuation mark indicating a footnote. The corresponding dagger is found beside this marginal note..."Heb. him, I. euery one of them". This proves that the AV men, as does virtually every other translator, knew that Verse 7 is about the PEOPLE mentioned in the first 5 verses.

Remember two things: the Psalms were written as SONGS. And Ps. 12 was written by David about the time he was pursued by Saul and was poor as dirt, constantly oppressed, not knowing whether the people he met would betray his whereabouts to Saul or not.

Here's Ps. 12:7 from the Bishop's Bible:

[Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer.

From the Geneva Bible:

Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

And from Young's Literal Translation of 1898:

Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve them, Thou keepest us from this generation to the age.

And you know virtually all modern translations indicate this verse is about PEOPLE. But yet this error continues to appear in KJVO publications, thus indicating how little their authors have read the version they exalt.

But my challenge is this: Please tryta find evidence of ANY organized KJVO movement before 1930 among the general public, especially in the USA. I maintain there was no real KJVO movement before 1930, & the only reason there is now is that certain authors are milking a cash cow created by the use of modern media to spread a Sensationalist idea.

 

[Mongol Servant]

Text

John - thanks very much for your comments. As a side note, my wife and I were in Sapporo for a couple of weeks last year visiting another missionary. Beautiful country!

Roby - thanks for your comments. Bro James's book, as mentioned, would be quite interesting to you, I'm sure. Especially since he came at the text issue from a "layman's" viewpoint.

Anyone else?

 

[Mexdeaf]

I believe in the sanctity of life (pro-life) and so does the Roman Catholic church. Should I reject this position, and become pro-choice, simply because the RCC is pro-life?

Has anyone else discovered other material published before Ray or Wilkinson, that details a KJB supporting position? Please give your exposure/experience and not more opinions from the KJV-naysayers (Kutilek, Norris, et al.).

The difference is- Pro-life did not originate with the RCC, it is a Biblical teaching. Whereas, IMHO KJVO is not, but rather a man-made doctrine.

My experience/exposure has been this:

I was confronted with the KJVO issue as a fairly new Christian when I arrived at Bible College- as a matter of fact on my first day there before classes even started. I was walking down the hall after moving in with my new roommates and mentioned something about 'the King James Bible'. Almost immediately a young man rushed out of the room next to mine and asked me, "Do you believe that every word in the King James is the Word of God?"

I was quite taken aback but managed to stammer out something to the effect of, "Sure, doesn't everybody?" To which my new friend (I'll call him 'Sam' here) said, "Not like US, brother!"

Thus began my introduction to the KJVO movement. 'Sam' was (and is to this day) a hard-core follower of Dr. Peter Ruckman. He had all of his books and received his tapes and shared them with me. I was intrigued by this new teaching.

The day finally came when I realized that something might be rotten in Pensacola. 'Sam' had just received a new tape from the Doctor. He called me in to his room to hear what he had to say. To my shock, I heard with my own ears Dr. Ruckman use vile language to describe men of God who I knew to be solid preachers of the Word of God because those men 'do not believe the Bible like WE do.' When I heard those words, I turned to 'Sam' and said, "'Sam', I have heard all I need to hear from that man. Anyone who can call my pastor (who was amongst those he named) words like that is not of God." I turned and walked out of 'Sam's' room and never looked back.

In spite of that event, I tried to keep an open mind to the claims of the KJVO proponents. I have done the best I can to investigate the sources that they claim, not being an expert in textual matters or original languages (or much of anything else for that matter). And I have come to the conviction that although I use the KJV almost exclusively and believe it to be an excellent translation of God's Word, I cannot find a reliable basis for condemning all the so-called Modern Versions just because they may use different words to say the exact same thing.

As the years have progressed, I have witnessed the fruit of the KJVO movement. And it isn't pretty- it has provoked division, dissention and diatribe. That isn't to say that the folks involved in the movement are bad people- most of them aren't. I can get along with most folks who are KJVO just fine. But there are (as in any group) a bunch of radicals who will not rest until they convert the 'heathen' to their way of thinking.

That's my take as humbly and simply as I can put it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here are some personal observations.

In 1966-67 I was stationed at Charleston AirForce
Base, and lived off-base in North Charleston, South
Carolina. I was working varying shift work
(collectively we worked 24-7) tracking Cargo planes
supplying our armed forces in Vietnam.

Anyway, when I was off during the day I could
listen all day (my wife had a day job) to the
local conservative Christian radio station.
There was a local Black preacher who preached and
his audience echoed (his audience echoed)
every phrase he said (every phrase he said).

Anyway, there was zero KJVO preaching, none, nada.
There were independant prsepertian pastors, independant
Baptist preachers, independant carismatic preachers, and
"So Independant you couldn't tell who they was" preachers.
No mention that the King James Version was the Only
version God could bless, whereby one could be saved,
MVs were of the Devil, MV readers were hellbound, etc.
NO MENTION of and KJVO ideas; no mention of the KJB.

Well, there was this pamplet I sent off decrying some version
that had errors (the KJV didn't have any errors). No mention
that there was more than one edition of the KJV, just nothing).
The anti-unknown-specific-MV pamplet was distributed
by a new KJV salesman.

So, for me, the whole history of the KJVO movement occured
after 1967, when I was an Adult, when I was a Christian.
For me the history of the KJVO movement was news, not
history.

 

[robycop3]

Mongol servant, I've read excerpts from james' book & didn't see anything worthy of my making a search to find/buy it. It appears he's into the camp that believes variant readings are wrong.

I, too, am a "civilian". I earn my bread operating a continuous caster in a steel refinery. I do no professional work in religion, except what every Christian should do.(I consider ANY work in God's name "pro" in a sense.) So my knowledge of KJVO is gleaned mostly from my own studying of many sources.

I disregard the "textual variant" arguments for a very sound reason: As a cop, if I had four honest, intelligent, well-meaning witnesses to one traffic accident, I would receive four differing witness statements to what really happened. Same with the Four Gospels. They differ greatly among themselves, with the fact that they were written years after the events narrated had occurred. From them, however, we can gather all the info about Jesus that He wanted preserved. And of course there are some narrations alike in all 4 of them.

We must apply the same standards to the manuscripts that we apply to the gospels, or we're using a DOUBLE STANDARD. After all, the mss were written by different people, same as the Gospels were, & if we don't allow for the same differences in MS writers as we do for the writers of the Gospels, we're not being honest.

That being said, let's look at a few quick facts about the KJVO doctrine:

1.) It's of fairly recent origin.

2.) It's totally man-made.

3.) It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, by the slightest implication. Yeah, I know not to expect any scripture mentioning English or the KJV directly, but God being omnipotent, He coulda made us clearly understand that the KJV was to be the final English translation of His word...if it were true. and according to Amos 3:7, He woulda said so...if it was His will to thus bless the KJV.

Without Scripture, there's only ONE other source possible for the origin of KJVO...THINK ABOUT IT!

I, for one, do NOT believe any religious doctrines not found in the Bible by at least clear implication, as the "Holy Trinity" doctrine is. And this doctrine has existed as long as the Scriptures have that imply it.

Again...

Is there any evidence for any general doctrine or movement declaring the KJV to be the only valid English Bible translation & that none other could be made, BEFORE 1930? I have an open mind about this.....

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The first real argument even remotely resembling KJVO began among the Anglicans, and consisted mostly of a denunciation of Westcott & Hort's work by Dean John Burgon. (While some people have made Burgon a hero for this, even founding a "Dean Burgon Society", they ignore the fact that he had some equally-scathing commentary against the Textus receptus!)

This denunciation of which you speak was no mere remote resemblance of the KJVO argument, it was the very basis of the argument. Granted, radicals have taken the argument to an unscriptural extreme, but the basis of the argument, as presented by Burgon, is valid. It is nothing more than a red herring to suggest that Wilkinson fathered the "movement."

Burgon "championed the Textus Receptus largely on the ground of the immense number of of witnesses from the 4th century onward, with their remarkably uniform character, which indicated to him the deliberate judgment of the church in preserving them. He thought that the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, with their few allies, were scanty survivals of a corrupt tradition, and that they probably survived because of their corruption. The extensive copying of the Textus Receptus indicated a demand." General Biblical Introduction - H.S. Miller - pgs 302-303

A common thread running through almost all these boox is their citation of the "Psalm 12:7 thingie". This idea originated in the 19th century, & found its way into Wilkinson's book, & is found in almost every KJVO publication of today. One little prob with this premise: IT'S FALSE!

Good men on both sides have conceded that the verse is ambiguous at best. Regardless, this verse is not the only passage that teaches preservation. With or without Psalm 12:7, God still promised to preserve His Word.

As a cop, if I had four honest, intelligent, well-meaning witnesses to one traffic accident, I would receive four differing witness statements to what really happened. Same with the Four Gospels. They differ greatly among themselves,

The glaring difference is that the gospels, although different perspectives, contain absolutely no contradictions.

 

[Keith M]

Good men on both sides have conceded that the verse is ambiguous at best. Regardless, this verse is not the only passage that teaches preservation. With or without Psalm 12:7, God still promised to preserve His Word.

This is true, Pastor Bob. It is a matter of interpretation as to how we think God intended to preserve His word - in one single English Bible version or in several different English Bible versions that have kept pace with changes in word meanings and usage. And I would have to agree that the roots of KJVO thought lie with Burgon in his stance against the W & H text.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The incident that I share below occurred long after Wilkinson, but predates Ray, Fuller, and Ruckman. It may very well have been the catalyst for the writings of these men.

On February 11, 1946, the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published. For a time there were public burnings, in church services, of the version or pages from it. It was called a "blasphemous unholy Bible," "an odious and contemptible crime," perpetuated by a "master strategy" using "fraudulent and underhand means." It was a "corrupted version, produced by religious infidels" from "centers of socialism and modernism." More ingenious was the juxtaposition, "The old Devil and his new Bible." The Ancestry of Our English Bible - Ira Maurice Rice - pg. 320

 

[Keith M]

And 40 years later every modern version is trashed just as the RSV was back then. The versions have changed but not the criticisms of the versions.

That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 NKJV

 

[Mongol Servant]

KJVO Beginnings

Thanks to everyone for the great responses & comments! Roger, thanks for bearing with me in my folly!
Pastor Bob, those are great comments on Burgon.
2 items I'd like to mention:
#1 - I believe that Bro John has the right insight on why there was no "KJVO" movement before 1880 = there was no need for it - the KJV was the dominant Bible used world-wide for the English-speaking people. The KJV defended itself. Pastor Bob's comments on the RSV, shows the early nucleus of the "KJVO" movement & why. I began reading all the material I could get on the textual issue (multiple variants, manuscript evidence, backgrounds of people involved,etc.) and saw numerous problems with the MVs.
Mexdeaf - I too, have ran into radical elements from the "KJVO" camp and am sorry that they express the views as they do. I am KJVonly, but not KJVugly!

#2 - if someone were going to dilute/water down/negate the scriptures, if the MVs are not it, what would be a better way to do it? Remember, that in order to trick/fool people, it would have to be as close a counterfeit as possible. Look at how many people have been fooled into trusting catholicism et al, that teaches many of the true facets of Christianity! What are your thoughts here?

 

[Keith M]

#2 - if someone were going to dilute/water down/negate the scriptures, if the MVs are not it, what would be a better way to do it? Remember, that in order to trick/fool people, it would have to be as close a counterfeit as possible. Look at how many people have been fooled into trusting catholicism et al, that teaches many of the true facets of Christianity! What are your thoughts here?

Despite the claims of many KJVO supporters, the MVs teach the same basic doctrines of salvation, Jesus' atoning blood, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His death, burial and triumphant resurrection. If the MVs are Satan's attempt to water down the gospel, he really botched it! If Satan were going to attempt to water down the gospel, wouldn't he do something to make it impossible for people to find the plan of salvation in these MVs??? I don't believe for a moment Satan is behind the MVs as they teach us all we need to know to find salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

[John of Japan]

John - thanks very much for your comments. As a side note, my wife and I were in Sapporo for a couple of weeks last year visiting another missionary. Beautiful country!

Roby - thanks for your comments. Bro James's book, as mentioned, would be quite interesting to you, I'm sure. Especially since he came at the text issue from a "layman's" viewpoint.

Anyone else?

Hey, brother, we met at the missionary camp! :wavey:

I may read Bro. James' book someday, but right now I'm too busy translating to read about translations!

 

[Mexdeaf]

#1 -
Mexdeaf - I too, have ran into radical elements from the "KJVO" camp and am sorry that they express the views as they do. I am KJVonly, but not KJVugly!

#2 - if someone were going to dilute/water down/negate the scriptures, if the MVs are not it, what would be a better way to do it? Remember, that in order to trick/fool people, it would have to be as close a counterfeit as possible. Look at how many people have been fooled into trusting catholicism et al, that teaches many of the true facets of Christianity! What are your thoughts here?

#1 - Thank you for not being KJVugly! I wish all of us could discuss this issue without being ugly about it.

#2 - Now I will try to tread lightly here. Please bear with me, and please accept my critique in the kindly manner in which it is offered-

If the devil wanted to dilute/water down/negate the Scriptures, why not do it through radical KJVO teachings?

Radical KJVO's say- if you were not saved through the influence of the KJV, you are not saved. Not just a few teach this, or have taught it. Casts doubt on the doctrine of salvation.

Radical KJVO's have caused much harm to the cause of missions. Missionaries who have nothing to say or do with the issue have lost support over this. The radicals have split schools, fellowships, and churches over this issue. This is NOT to say that the radicals of the other side have not pushed the issue. They have. But back in the 60's and 70's for some reason we could all get along. When I was in Bible College in the late 70's it was no big deal for a preacher to quote verses from different versions. John of Japan's grandfather Dr. Rice did it frequently.

Radical KJVO's say that if a missionary's foreign translation of the Bible disagrees with the KJV, or was translated from different texts than the KJV, it is not the Word of God. This type of teaching has poisoned the mission field in Mexico, spurred a number of very poorly translated and unreliable 'one-man' translations, and wasted thousands of dollars in missions support.

And lastly, whether we like it or not, agree or not, the English language has changed in the last 400 years. Many words in the KJV have a different meaning than they do now. There is a need for reliable translations (IMHO- FE translations based on a comparison of ALL the texts available, with a weighed reliance on the MT/TR) in today's English language.

That is not to say that there are not problems with the MV's. Every translation including the KJV has strengths and weaknesses.

That is as I see it.

 

[robycop3]

Pastor_Bob:This denunciation of which you speak was no mere remote resemblance of the KJVO argument, it was the very basis of the argument. Granted, radicals have taken the argument to an unscriptural extreme, but the basis of the argument, as presented by Burgon, is valid. It is nothing more than a red herring to suggest that Wilkinson fathered the "movement."

This argument was little-noticed in England outside the Anglican clergy, and much-less in the USA where Anglicans were scarce as hens' teeth. There simply was NO KJVO movement among the general public until much-later.

And it's an undisputable that the early KJVO authors after Wilkinson all copied extensively from his book, or copied from each other, this still ultimately copying from Wilkinson. If one reads Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, one will see I'm right in this assertion. I HAVE read that book, as well as those by Ray, Ruckman, Fuller, etc. so I speak from firsthand knowledge....a knowledge that any other English reader can easily have with the investment of some reading time.

Burgon "championed the Textus Receptus largely on the ground of the immense number of of witnesses from the 4th century onward, with their remarkably uniform character, which indicated to him the deliberate judgment of the church in preserving them. He thought that the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, with their few allies, were scanty survivals of a corrupt tradition, and that they probably survived because of their corruption. The extensive copying of the Textus Receptus indicated a demand." General Biblical Introduction - H.S. Miller - pgs 302-303

"Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking, — 'whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible?' The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any text would equally suit our present purpose" (Dean J. Burgon, The Revision Revised pg. 17).

"Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (eg. at pg. 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (Dean John Burgon, The Revision Revised pg. 21, note 3).


Good men on both sides have conceded that the verse is ambiguous at best. Regardless, this verse is not the only passage that teaches preservation. With or without Psalm 12:7, God still promised to preserve His Word.

I see no argument here against God's having preserved His word, nor am I making one.. The argument is against Ps. 12:7 being a "preservation" verse. I proved, in a post yesterday, that the AV 1611 itself shows V7 is about the PEOPLE mentioned in the 1st 5 verses. In the 19th century, someone mistakenly said this verse was about the preservation of God's word. Wilkinson copied that error into his book, & the Koppie-Katt authors who followed him in this error. A simple reading of the AV 1611 woulda ended this error, but such a reading seemsta be lacking among many proponents of the doctrine in question.

Conclusion: the sub-doctrine stating that ps. 12:7 is about God's preservation of His word is FALSE. It was false before the KJVO movement began, & it's just-as-false today.

And all this begs the question: IF PS. 12:7 WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT PRESERVATION, WHERE IS ANY ONE VERSION INDICATED AS THE "OFFICIAL" ONE???????????????


The glaring difference is that the gospels, although different perspectives, contain absolutely no contradictions.

Actually, they DO. How many women showed up at Jesus' tomb? Did the fig tree Jesus cursed wither immediately(Matthew) or over at least several hours? (Mark). I can go on & on, but i believe just these 2 examples should make my case. But still I accept all the Gospels as Scripture same as any other Christian. No two people express themselves exactly the same, and I don't txpect those Apostles, writing years after the fact, to have been letter-perfect. Same with manuscript writers. Mosta them were written years apart by people who never knew each other, prolly living in different areas, & we should be suspicious of them only if theywere exactly alike. I TRUST GOD to have preserved His word as HE chose, and to have presented/provided it as HE chose, despite the opposition of the devil and of certain men who believe themselves to be the policemen if the Scriptures.

In summary...The general KJVO doctrine did NOT start with Burgon's denunciation of the RV & of the work of W&H, although it was later incorporated into the movement when it DID start.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

And it's an undisputable that the early KJVO authors after Wilkinson all copied extensively from his book, or copied from each other, this still ultimately copying from Wilkinson.

Edward F. Hills is a prominent KJV defender who did not copy Wilkinson. The fact is, if one author gets it right, why not use his material? What else can another publish except the truth, even if its already been stated?

 

[Keith M]

Edward F. Hills is a prominent KJV defender who did not copy Wilkinson. The fact is, if one author gets it right, why not use his material? What else can another publish except the truth, even if its already been stated?

One major problem with this viewpoint is that many KJVO authors go beyond truth into fantasy. If they are writing about truth, that is one thing. But promoting some of their fantastic "truths" is yet another matter altogether.

 

[robycop3]

Edward F. Hills is a prominent KJV defender who did not copy Wilkinson. The fact is, if one author gets it right, why not use his material? What else can another publish except the truth, even if its already been stated?

Thing is, the original authors didn't get it right, and all those who've followed have largely copied from their predecessors.

The late Dr. Hills brought nothing new to the table. he believed KJVO "by faith". Faith in WHAT? His faith in that doctrine was BLIND faith, as the substance & evidence called for in BIBLICAL faith(Heb. 11;1) was missing. In everyday language, his "faith" is called GUESSWORK.

However, I agree that Hills' approach was a different approach from that of the ole "party line", but it was just as wrong & just as devoid of proof. And he certainly didn't originate the doctrine; he merely believed it for some strange reason & tried, unsuccessfully to sustain it.