Origin of the TERM King James Only

[Yeshua1]

The fundamentalist opposition against the RSV was not about the Greek texts, but about the liberal renderings, such as "young woman" instead of "virgin."

The NASB was not opposed by fundamentalists in general. I bought a first edition of the NT from the BJU bookstore. Those who opposed the NASB did not do so until Ruckman attacked it. Opposition to the NIV was originally on the basis of its translation method, not its source texts.

So the Nasb was well regarded despite using "inferior" greek texts, while the Niv was viewed as defective due to being a dynamic translation?

 

[rlvaughn]

Bruce Lackey was a frequent speaker in the chapel services, and I do not recall him ever claiming that the KJV was perfect. My friends, who had him for a teacher in the Bible School, have not suggested that he taught that the KJV was perfect or that he taught KJV-only views.

I cannot say for certain what view he held. He wrote two books or booklets related to the subject, neither of which I have.

• Can You Trust Your Bible? 1980, BIMI Publications
• Why I Believe the Old King James Bible, 1972, probably self-published

Here are some excerpts from Can You Trust Your Bible, according to David Cloud. More context might be nice, but they do seem to go beyond just KJV Preferred.

“The King James Version was the only Bible available to most English-speaking people for centuries. The manuscripts from which it was translated were used by the majority of believers through the centuries. Thus they represent the Word of God which He promised to preserve for all generations. ‘The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever’ (Psalm 12:6-7). ‘For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations’ (Psalm 100:5)...The most serious problem created by the multiplicity of versions and half-truths from textual critics is that many believe that we have no accurate, infallible Bible anywhere in the world today. To say that it exists in all the versions is to say, in effect, that you can not find it, since no one can agree on the best way to resolve all the differences in the versions...If we believe God’s promises of preservation, we must believe that the Bible which has been available to all generations is that which God has preserved. Conversely, that which was hidden was not God’s truth, ‘which endureth to all generations’.”

 

[John of Japan]

So the Nasb was well regarded despite using "inferior" greek texts, while the Niv was viewed as defective due to being a dynamic translation?

Fundamentalists did not even talk about the texts until the 1970s. Talk about translation methodology probably didn't occur until the 1980s. Fundamentalists just felt that the NIV was a bad translation, comparing it to the original languages. I have pamphlets from the early 1970s critiquing the New English Bible for that. Bob Sumner didn't even write his pamphlet on Bible Translations until 1979. John R. Rice critiqued translations that way in his book Dr. Rice, Here Is my Question,1962.

 

[Yeshua1]

I cannot say for certain what view he held. He wrote two books or booklets related to the subject, neither of which I have.

• Can You Trust Your Bible? 1980, BIMI Publications
• Why I Believe the Old King James Bible, 1972, probably self-published

Here are some excerpts from Can You Trust Your Bible, according to David Cloud. More context might be nice, but they do seem to go beyond just KJV Preferred.

“The King James Version was the only Bible available to most English-speaking people for centuries. The manuscripts from which it was translated were used by the majority of believers through the centuries. Thus they represent the Word of God which He promised to preserve for all generations. ‘The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever’ (Psalm 12:6-7). ‘For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations’ (Psalm 100:5)...The most serious problem created by the multiplicity of versions and half-truths from textual critics is that many believe that we have no accurate, infallible Bible anywhere in the world today. To say that it exists in all the versions is to say, in effect, that you can not find it, since no one can agree on the best way to resolve all the differences in the versions...If we believe God’s promises of preservation, we must believe that the Bible which has been available to all generations is that which God has preserved. Conversely, that which was hidden was not God’s truth, ‘which endureth to all generations’.”

Problems are that those passages speak to the Originals, not the Kjv, and I know of none holding to Nas and esv that say not a complete and accurate bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

Fundamentalists did not even talk about the texts until the 1970s. Talk about translation methodology probably didn't occur until the 1980s. Fundamentalists just felt that the NIV was a bad translation, comparing it to the original languages. I have pamphlets from the early 1970s critiquing the New English Bible for that. Bob Sumner didn't even write his pamphlet on Bible Translations until 1979. John R. Rice critiqued translations that way in his book Dr. Rice, Here Is my Question,1962.

Just seems to be a lot of misguided efforts, as they should have focused instead on getting bible translated out period, not worrying if Kjv or Nas or something else!

 

[rlvaughn]

Problems are that those passages speak to the Originals, not the Kjv, and I know of none holding to Nas and esv that say not a complete and accurate bible!

I really wish you could stay on topic and make comments that are relevant to the posts you quote. I am not discussing those passages, but what Bruce Lackey may or may not have believed. Doesn't matter whether you think it is right.

 

[Yeshua1]

I really wish you could stay on topic and make comments that are relevant to the posts you quote. I am not discussing those passages, but what Bruce Lackey may or may not have believed. Doesn't matter whether you think it is right.

His viewpoints illustrate though why impossible to have a decent book produced by those into KJVO, as the basic premise totally shoddy!

 

[rlvaughn]

His viewpoints illustrate though why impossible to have a decent book produced by those into KJVO, as the basic premise totally shoddy!

If you are not just trying to see how many posts you can get on BB with your one liners, you really should try to stay on topic and actually address the comments of those you quote rather than just saying the same stuff over and over. For the reason stated above, I am putting you on ignore. Just want you to know why I will not be replying to you further. Thanks.

 

[Logos1560]

• Can You Trust Your Bible? 1980, BIMI Publications

Here are some excerpts from Can You Trust Your Bible, according to David Cloud. More context might be nice, but they do seem to go beyond just KJV Preferred.

“The King James Version was the only Bible available to most English-speaking people for centuries. The manuscripts from which it was translated were used by the majority of believers through the centuries. Thus they represent the Word of God which He promised to preserve for all generations. ‘The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever’ (Psalm 12:6-7). ‘For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations’ (Psalm 100:5)... [p. 48]

The most serious problem created by the multiplicity of versions and half-truths from textual critics is that many believe that we have no accurate, infallible Bible anywhere in the world today. To say that it exists in all the versions is to say, in effect, that you can not find it, since no one can agree on the best way to resolve all the differences in the versions...If we believe God’s promises of preservation, we must believe that the Bible which has been available to all generations is that which God has preserved. Conversely, that which was hidden was not God’s truth, ‘which endureth to all generations’.” [p. 51]

I have Bruce Lackey's 54 page small book Can You Trust Your Bible? I did not notice him claiming that the KJV is perfect in that book.

Just before the quotations from pages 48 and 51 that David Cloud cited, Bruce Lackey wrote: "The author firmly believes that a Christian may confidently say, when he refers to an accurate translation of Scripture, 'This is the Word of God'" (p. 48).

Bruce Lackey wrote: "Let us not condemn something simply because it is a paraphrase; in so doing, we would have to condemn certain portions of the New Testament" (p. 40).

Before the quotation from page 51, Bruce Lackey wrote: "These words are not written to condemn modern translations, as such. Since we can believe a New Testament quotation of an Old Testament verse when it does not use exactly the same words, we could believe John 1:2 in the New International Version and the King James Version. Though slightly different words are used, the meaning is the same, The problem arises when modern versions omit words, phrases, verses, and whole paragraphs. At that point, the believer must choose between one passage or the other as the Word of God. When an error is found, it is not necessary to put a blanket condemnation on the version, since many verses probably are correctly translated; however, when we see obvious errors, we certainly cannot recommend the version as a whole." (p. 50).

 

[rlvaughn]

I have Bruce Lackey's 54 page small book Can You Trust Your Bible? I did not notice him claiming that the KJV is perfect in that book...

Thanks.

Your excerpts are not enough to convince me that he was not KJVO, neither Cloud's excerpts enough to convince me that he was. I will make up my mind once I read the book. Nevertheless, thanks for giving some other perspective about what he said.