KJVO & Bibliology

Tom, that would depend on your definition of "Fundamental." If by that you mean the content of the essays in "The Fundamentals" I suspect most KJVOs would fit that mold. However, if you mean by "Fundamental" the pseudo-fundamentalism so popular today by those who demand one utter their particular Shibboleth, then no. I see the "Fundamentalism" of such camps with a narrow focus, designed to reflect well only on themselves (BJU, PCC, HAC, etc.) as being as, or even more, hetrodox than many in the KJVO camp. In fact, when we read volume I and the first 7 essays of volume II in "The Fundamentals" we find very little the KJVOs would disagree with. Admittedly, they take it farther than the essays do, but they would not disagree with the content of those first 26 essays in any substantial way.

 

I think a good case can be made that KJVOnlyism (not to be confused with KJVPreferredism) definitely removes one from fundamentalism for the following reasons (with varying degrees of seriousness):

1. It implicitly attributes revelation in 1611, long after the Bible teaches that revelation closed.

2. It denies that other accurate translations of the word of God are indeed the word of God.

3. It affirms changes to the word of God as revealed to the apostles.

4. It builds a doctrine that is not found in Scripture, thus adding to doctrine.

I think 2 and 4 are the most serious from this list. 1 and 3 are implicit arguments drawn from their statemetns. More could be listed but this will suffice for now.

As for the Fundamentals, as I have previously quoted from them, it is clear that a KJVOnlyite will not agree to all of it. While it may not disagree with a large part of it, there are places where they clearly cannot agree. Consider the quote from James M. Gray in "Inspiration of the Bible:"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record--tha autographs of or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle

But does this make nugatory our contention? Some would say it does, and they would argue speciously that to insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being has ever seen is an acadmic question merely, and without value. (p. 139 in Kregel's 1990 reprintg edition; italics his; bold mine)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KJVOnlyites disagree with this. They, by and large, do not agree that inspiration is confined to the autographs. (They rail on us who dare to make such a statement.) They claim, as the last sentence above addresses, that an inspired original is useless because we don't have it. It is funny how this position is changed. As Gray addresses this argument, it was the fodder of the liberals who used it to deny modern translation. Now it is the fodder of the KJVO's to deny modern translations.

Gray concludes his article with a quote from the General Assembly of the PCA 1893:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bible as we now have it, in its various translations and revisions, when freed from all errors and mistakes of translators, copyists, and printers, (is) the very Word of God, and consequently wholly without error<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A KJVOnlyite would have a very difficult times with this, particularly the statement of "various translations."

On this issue of the Fundamentals, we must remember that it is not the points of agreement that are important as much as it is the points of disagreement. For instance, the Catholics hold to Bible teaching in a number of areas. Yet it is where they depart that is significant. Let us not examine "numbers of agreement" but rather than "substance of disagreements" in determining fundamentalism.

Thomas's talk of Shibboleths is somewhat misleading, IMO. The shibboleth of fundamentalism has always been Bible doctrine. KJVOnlyism falls outside of that category. It is the KJVO's who have made a shibboleth out of translations. Those who do not agree with them are liberals, modernists, Bible-deniers, etc.

FTR, the inclusion of BJU with HAC and PCC, as already noted in another thread, is a poor grouping. There is a vast difference between them especially in this area of discussion. I would not even group HAC and PCC together.

Let me also make clear the distinction between KJVOnlyism and KJVPreferredism. The latter is fine; the former is not. This also assumes that we are not talking on teh level of Greek texts. That is a whole different issue. KJVO's do not talk on the level of Greek texts.

Lastly, "pseudo fundamentalism" is a nebulous term. It should be more specifically define. Pseudo-fundamentalists are those who add to doctrine or who insist on their particular a-biblical practice as a part of true Christianity. It is not merely those with whom we disagree or dislike.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
1. It implicitly attributes revelation in 1611, long after the Bible teaches that revelation closed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know of no KJVO who believes revelation did not cease at the closing of the canon with the completion of the book of the Revelation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. It denies that other accurate translations of the word of God are indeed the word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even Peter Ruckman, the most radical of the KJVOs does not believe this. He has a long list of bibles other than the KJV which he believes are the word of God. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. It affirms changes to the word of God as revealed to the apostles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is pure nonsense! This is a subjective argument based on your misunderstanding of textual criticism. It is opinion, and in your case, uninformed opinion, at best. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. It builds a doctrine that is not found in Scripture, thus adding to doctrine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is not addressed in "The Fundamentals." And, if this is so, then BJU, PCC, HAC, and many other "Bible colleges" are equally quilty with their long lists of "standards" etc. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Consider the quote from James M. Gray in "Inspiration of the Bible:"

A KJVOnlyite would have a very difficult times with this, particularly the statement of "various translations."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thomas's talk of Shibboleths is somewhat misleading, IMO. The shibboleth of fundamentalism has always been Bible doctrine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again you either fail to understand my point, or deliberately misstate it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FTR, the inclusion of BJU with HAC and PCC, as already noted in another thread, is a poor grouping. There is a vast difference between them especially in this area of discussion. I would not even group HAC and PCC together.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All three have a "narrow focus, designed to reflect well only on themselves." My statement stands vindicated by the facts.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know of no KJVO who believes revelation did not cease at the closing of the canon with the completion of the book of the Revelation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you would tell me, you should learn to read better. The word “implicit” means that they don’t admit it but that it seems inherent in their position. You can only attain perfection and inerrancy through revelation. To argue for perfection for a 1611 translation seems to imply that there had to be revelation in 1611. It’s that simple … and implicit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even Peter Ruckman, the most radical of the KJVOs does not believe this. He has a long list of bibles other than the KJV which he believes are the word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you read along on this board that you are moderating? The cry of these people (and I sat under one for several years in ministry) is “Things that are different are not the same.” For them, any version that differs with the KJV is a perversion. Others and I have given direct quotes from published works of Ruckman where he has asserted the perfection and inerrancy of the KJV. Incidentally, why don’t you post Ruckman’s list? I would be interested in seeing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is pure nonsense! This is a subjective argument based on your misunderstanding of textual criticism. It is opinion, and in your case, uninformed opinion, at best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No not really. It is to be attributed to your not understanding what I am referring to. The point I am making has nothing to do with textual criticism. It is about translation. There are places in the KJV where the English translation does not properly translate the undisputed Greek word. For instance in Heb 10:23 the word ελπιδος is translated as faith. This word never means faith and is never translated that way anywhere else. They are two different words and all Greek texts (even the TR) read hope. The KJV translated it faith. It is a change of the apostolic revelation no matter your textual position. You will argue as you did in a previous thread that it is not a big change, and its not. However, a change is a change. I don’t think it is that big of a deal but I am not the one arguing for perfection. It seems there are two choices: 1) The Holy Spirit meant “faith” and all the Greek texts have it wrong; 2) the Holy Spirit meant “hope” and the KJV has it wrong. Is there a third?

Furthermore, there is no need to call my opinion uninformed. It most certainly is not. I do not know why you feel the need to call those who disagree with you uninformed. Most of your professors disagree with you. Most people who have studied the issue disagree with you. They, and I, may be wrong. That does not mean we are uninformed. It means we are persuaded by the evidence contrary to your persuastion. We simply see it differently than you do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not addressed in "The Fundamentals." And, if this is so, then BJU, PCC, HAC, and many other "Bible colleges" are equally quilty with their long lists of "standards" etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn’t say it was addressed in the fundamentals. This was not an issue back then. However, a case can be made that it was addressed in the fundamentals by virtue of the laying out the biblical doctrine of inspiration. KJVOnlyism is not in line with that doctrine and therefore, is outside of what the fundamentals defined. Furthermore, the Fundamentals are not the infallible guideline for doctrine. Scripture is.

As for a “long lists of ‘standards’” at these schools, they are not held up as doctrine. If you read my post, I very clearly said “doctrine” not “standards.” So far as I know, BJU grants much latitude concerning standards to churches and individuals outside of their institution. BJIII and in the past Jr, both preached in places I wouldn’t go near. Their standards deal with their institution. PCC is like this largely (with the exception of the Bible version issue). HAC comes the closest to being what you describe here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once again you either fail to understand my point, or deliberately misstate it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please clarify it for us. It seems that you are claiming “shibboleths” as standards of particular institutions being pseudo fundamentalism. To my knowledge, these standards are, by and large, not held up as biblical doctrine but rather application of biblical doctrine to a specific context (i.e., educational institution). As I said above, I think HAC would come the closest to these shibboleths. As I said, I think the shibboleth of true fundamentalism is explicit biblical doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All three have a "narrow focus, designed to reflect well only on themselves." My statement stands vindicated by the facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty uninformed opinion, at least with regards to BJU. The others I cannot speak for that much.

BTW, I am not trying to be antagonistic to you in any sense. I am merely giving the other side of the issue.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The word “implicit” means that they don’t admit it but that it is inherent in their position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know what "implicit" means. It means they don't believe what you say they believe, but you just make it up to smear them. Just as it is "implicit" that all Calvinists have a monster for a God because he predestined some people for hell by not electing them to salvation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pretty uninformed opinion, at least with regards to BJU. The others I cannot speak for that much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now I remember why I quit responding to your posts some time ago. A mind is like a parachute, it does not work when it is closed!

 

Implicit means that it is not explicit. It does not mean that it is wrong. The opponents of Calvinism have been refuted scripturally. The opponents of KJVOnlyism have not been. I would love for a KJVO to tell me how they avoid the problem of revelation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now I remember why I quit responding to your posts some time ago. A mind is like a parachute, it does not work when it is closed!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you know better than this. However, I am somewhat confused as to why my mind is closed and yours is not. The closed minds seem to be the ones who don't agree with your assessment.

As I said, I am quite sure with reference to BJU that you are uninformed; as to the others I do not know.

Thomas, it is indeed frustrating not to be able to carry on a conversation with you in here. I do not know the reason for it but as I said, I have no animosity or problem with you. This forum is a place for debate and for ideas to be challenged. We should be able to do that with attacking someone else's intelligence or ability to carry on basic debate. I think you have a great deal of knowledge on some areas and I have learned from you. Obviously we disagree on some areas. However, I disagree with a number of people and it never gets to this place.

Now, back to Tom's thread, which I think is a valuable topic.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know of no KJVO who believes revelation did not cease at the closing of the canon with the completion of the book of the Revelation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is true then you haven't spent nearly as much time around the people who take Riplinger, Gipp, Hyles, Chick, etc. serious as I have.... They ALL get the point their leaders are trying to make. A deacon from the church I belong to in Georgia (who is a friend btw) said that if every word of the KJV wasn't the Word of God then none of it was. The same guy actually said, "God forbid someone should be save using one of those other Bibles." He also said that God must just hold those saved with other versions accountable for what the read.

The pastor of a church I visited in Douglasville, GA a couple of years ago (who has a doctorate from HCC) stated in his pulpit that the Greek should never be used to correct the KJV, only to clarify it. I have seen and heard "preachers" who thump the pulpit and declare that the KJV is the only Word of God because "things that are different are not the same."

The leaders may be leaving themselves some wiggle room to deal with scholarly critics but their followers definitely take the ball and run with it.

Also, I attended a church pastored by a BJU graduate for 4 years. He is probably the best Bible teacher I have ever heard. His church is by far and away the best one I have ever been associated with. I have heard speakers with close ties to BJU. I know students a BJU. I have read publications from BJU. My pastor when I was growing up came from Piedmont Bible College which is, as I understand it, pretty much in step with BJU doctrinally.

What exactly about BJU do you contend is not biblically fundamental or orthodox? I don't personally agree with a few of the standards they suggest. However, I never witnessed any situation in which anyone associated with them tried to forcefully impose upon someone who didn't go along.

 

All that you posted does nothing to support the thesis that KJVOs believe the canon is still open and that God is giving new revelation today. Sorry.

Why did I lump BJU in with the others? Simple. Do you remember the "no interracial dating" policy, and the silly attempt to "prove" it was scriptural by quoting a bunch of OT verses that dealt with the spiritual separation of the nation of Israel? And, in case you haven't noticed, BJU is so exclucivist that they are isolated from reality. About 15 years ago, my nephew, who was a student at TTU at the time, was looking for a seminary to attend. He had looked at TTU, but wanted to attend another school to avoid academic "inbreeding." He had a friend who was a BJU student, and the student invited my nephew to Greenville to look at BJU and get a feel for it. When my nephew arrived he was told that, due to his being a presently enrolled student at TTU that BJU's stand on "secondary separation" forbade them to even allow him on campus! Contrast that to the fact that today Sodomites are allowed on campus in order to maintain the tax exemption on their art gallery! Talk about a double standard!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Gail Riplinger claiming God supernaturally inspired her book in a verbal plenary way isn't still believing in revelation? Huh?

You claimed not to know any KJVOs who believed revelation was still being given. You now have other evidence. And you still have not produced this long list of Bible versions you claim Ruckman validates other than the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tom, I have NABV right here on my desk. I have read it, and re-read it. She nowhere makes any such claim. She said, tongue in cheek during an interview, that the initials G.A. stood for "God And" Riplinger. It was a joke. To say she claims supernatural revelation commensurate to biblical inspiration is simply untrue. Why make up such nonsense, and make us all look like idiots, when there are so many good and valid reasons to oppose her writings, and those of many others from that camp? Why not let the truth be our shield and defense? We don't need lies, distortions, and hyperbole to defend our position!

As to Ruckman, he endorses the Olivetan, Luthers, the Synodal, and even the RV of 1909, along with many others. This information is simple to confirm. Just go to his web site and read some of the articles from his "Bible Believers Bulletin."

Come on! We don't need falsehood to defend a book of Truth! Let's leave that to the other camp!

 

I am aware of what she said to James White, and the context in which she said it. James blew it up to be a claim of divine inspiration on the same level as the bible but she never said nor meant that.

The only link I have to Ruckmans stuff is http://www.kjv1611.org/bbbtr.htm

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Larry wrote:

could you expound on this point please?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to be long. I was away all day. The point I was making was as illustrated in verses such as Heb above where the undisputed word is mistranslated by the KJV. There are several places like this.

Contributing to this, though less black and white, is the choice of several readings with virtually no manuscript support (e.g. Acts 9:36, Luke 17 something (I can't remember the verse right off), 1 John 5:7, etc.). While there is some support for these inclusions, it is very minimal at best.

As for revelation, consider Ruckman's claim that the AV has "advanced revelation" from the Greek and Hebrew. Why do people deny that Ruckman believes this? It is in print in many published sources.

As for Riplinger, her quotes, if tongue in cheek, contribute even greater doubt to her credibility (if you can surpass "no credibility"). Why would you even joke about something like that? FTR, I have seen the quote in several places and have no reason to think that she was speaking tongue in cheek. To paraphrase someone else, why do we stoop to not recognizing the obvious to defend a position? Let the facts speak for themselves.

Thomas, as for your nephew's encounter at BJU, I find that totally contrary to what I know of BJU. I can name TTU students who were there, who were admitted to teh student body, who graduated from TTU and then came there. In short, I find that hard to believe that it came from a credible source at BJU. Perhaps a student said that; but I would find it very hard to believe that someone with the actual authority to say that said it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
No problem. I'm about to be away for a few days myself. Just as soon as I change the soft-spikes on my golf shoes and clean my grips. I have some intense pastoral counseling to do with the Greens <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Save me a spot in your group. The weather is still preventing the counsleing ministry up here.

 

Pastor Larry said, on Riplinger's debatable claim to divine revelation:

Why would you even joke about something like that? FTR, I have seen the quote in several places and have no reason to think that she was speaking tongue in cheek.

The quote, for the record, is:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Daily during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources--much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the directed hand of God--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G.A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger--God as author and Riplinger as secretary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm quoting this from James White's booklet "New Age Bible Versions Refuted," but it was originally in Joseph Chambers' newsletter End Times and Victorious Living, Jan/Feb 1994. (I have tried to obtain a copy of this newsletter directly from Paw Creek Ministries so I could read the remainder of the article and the quotation in context, but unfortunately there are no more copies available.)

I agree with you that there is no indication that Riplinger is speaking facetiously, but is quite seriously claiming:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>to be receiving direct revelation from God as Elijah did food
<LI>to have been supernaturally guided in her "research"
<LI>that she essentially took dictation from God
[/list]

This is also consistent with her remarks in the James White radio debate on KRDS in 1993. There is not a hint of humour in her claims, in regards to "acrostic algebra," that "the Lord gave that to me one night" or that "the Lord calls [the NASB] the NASV." On the contrary, she sounds exactly like someone defending her argument with a claim of divine inspiration or knowledge of some kind. She is altogether serious.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ransom ]