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!
Right or wrong, the common thread of the KJV-only position seems to be control. This term may be objectionable to some, depending on how it might apply.Even if they were not just "King James when it is convenient," I have trouble viewing groups which add to the sacred Scriptures (e.g. Latter-Day Saints/The Book of Mormon; Christian Science/Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures) as being "King James Only" in any way we would normally think of that term.
John 16:12-13My Bible states that was only given to those who wrote the original books!
Please, please, please, show those verses and back up what you assert.
More than one to make a doctrine, right?
The Kjv pretty much was the only accepted Bible until 1881/1901. when the RV/Asv translations came out, but interesting to me the KJVO really gained steam when the Rsv and then Nas/Niv came out! Like the Kjv was being now threatened?As mentioned in post # 23, it is not important to the point that I am making whether these groups are orthodox or heretical – or whether anyone agrees with the way any of them view KJV priority. The point is that support of the King James Bible is broader than the pigeonhole in which some try to place it. It has made a good debating to claim KJVO starts with Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson and was point within the conservative-fundamentalist Baptists through J. J. Ray and Peter Ruckman. Most Baptists do not want to trace their belief to a Seventh-day Adventist, so there is power in the charge. And the place of Wilkinson’s influence on Ray and David Otis Fuller (and maybe Peter Ruckman) should not be dismissed, because it exists. However, the fact that we can historically find support of the “King James Bible only” prior to Wilkinson, and that we can find it outside the influence of “Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman” seriously questions whether those afore-mentioned debaters really seek the historical truth of KJVO, or just want to hold on to their prime debating tool.
While there were KJVO type beliefs and endorsements before the 1960s (going back at least to the early 1800s), there was no real need for a “KJVO movement” before that time. When new translations began to make inroads in conservative churches (NASB, NIV), then the so-called “movement” occurred. A “KJVO movement” was not something that would happen among liberals who questioned the conservative view of an inspired transaction of God giving his truth to man. Some of them might defend it on literary grounds, but they were not attached to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of the word of God.
- For nearly 300 years, the translation made under King James was unmistakably “The Bible,” “the one and only Bible,” to most English-speaking Christians.
- There were no serious challengers to this status until the Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901. Despite their initial acceptance by some, both of them failed to capture the hearts of the general Christian public.
- The next serious challenge came with the Revised Standard Version of 1952. While this translation was accepted by liberal/mainline denominations, evangelicals, conservatives, and fundamentalists for the most part forcefully rejected it.
- These revisions (as well as other minor ones) met with resistance, and were catalysts for censure against them and endorsement and praise for the King James Version.
There is probably no one debating KJVO today who has not heard of Wilkinson, Ray, and Ruckman. However, any claim that this everyone in this diverse group of Christian denominations got their KJVO ideas from them is unbelievable to me.
John 16:12-13
Promise was made to just Hos Apostles and those under the outreach, such as Luke and Mark, but not to the 1611 translators!I have yet many things to say unto you.
but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he,
the Sprit of truth.
is come.
he will guide you into all truth:
for he shall not speak of himself;
but whatsoever he shall hear,
that shall he speak:
and he will show you things to come.
John 16:12-13
"My Bible states that was only given to those who wrote the original books!"
Where is the explicit statement in that passage?
Promise was made to just Hos Apostles and those under the outreach, such as Luke and Mark, but not to the 1611 translators!
Inspiration only was given to the NT authors!What are you talking about?
You said, My Bible states that was only given to those who wrote the original books.
(that inspiration)
Please provide where your bible actually states what you said it states.
Inspiration only was given to the NT authors!
Were the Prophets and Apostles inspired by God to write or not His word?You say.
Now bible say please.
"My Bible states"
Were the Prophets and Apostles inspired by God to write or not His word?
The word of the Lord came to the Prophets, and the Spirit inspired the Apostles also!"My Bible states"
The word of the Lord came to the Prophets, and the Spirit inspired the Apostles also!
Nope, gave you plain scripture already!"My Bible states"
Did you lose your bible and now all you can do is deflect by asking questions?
Nope, gave you plain scripture already!
While this might be true of some groups, I would disagree with this as a general statement -- that is, that control is a common thread of the KJV-Only position. I don't find the term objectionable, I just don't think it is generally established.Right or wrong, the common thread of the KJV-only position seems to be control. This term may be objectionable to some, depending on how it might apply.
Some groups are banking on the fact that the language is often archaic, thus requiring explanation even for those whose first language is English. Elizabethan English is not our norm.
You may be right. My observation is limited, stemming mainly from personal experience with abusive churches and cults, which is more extensive than I would have liked.While this might be true of some groups, I would disagree with this as a general statement -- that is, that control is a common thread of the KJV-Only position. I don't find the term objectionable, I just don't think it is generally established.
To unravel this a bit more, let me explain. I do not mean that there are none who sincerely believe this is the correct flow of KJVO history. The problem is those who should know better, and especially those who have been shown better.The point is that support of the King James Bible is broader than the pigeonhole in which some try to place it. It has made a good debating tactic to claim KJVO starts with Seventh-day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson and was scattered among the conservative-fundamentalist Baptists through J. J. Ray and Peter Ruckman.
I do not mean that there are none who sincerely believe this is the correct flow of KJVO history. The problem is those who should know better, and especially those who have been shown better.
Where have you looked for the “flow of history”? Who are these 150, sheep who follow one another? Are there no churches who still hold the KJV who descended from Baptist associations who declared the King James Bible was the word of God in the 1800s and early 1900s. Perhaps you dismiss everyone who are not a certain stripe of fundamentalist? Is this a KJVO statement?I do not see you as presenting "the correct flow of KJVO history."
I have read over 150 post-1960 books by KJV-only authors, and I do not find that their KJV-only reasoning/teaching comes from the groups to which you appeal.
“The Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” (Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists, 1905, Abstract of Principles)
I do not invalidate those who disagree with James White. You are free to, as I am. In fact, I think it would be could for folks on both sides of this issue to work together and come up with something better. However, his categorization is widely used, often referred to, and perhaps the earliest of its kind. Nothing requires you to believe every group named in the OP is KJVO according to your definition. I have not made such a claim. I have nevertheless explained that I believe all of them do fit the categorization of White and those who follow his categories generally.Are you in effect trying to impose James White's definition of KJV-only on others and demanding that they follow it? Perhaps those whom you criticize have a different and even a better understanding of what constitutes KJV-only than you or James White may have.
“Two great deceptions have now overtaken mankind. The first is the unproved Theory of Evolution and the second is the Counterfeit Evolving Bibles that are currently flooding the market. Both cast doubt on the accuracy of the Real Word of God, the King James Bible.”
“We read only from the King James Version Holy Bible, any other Bible is incorrect and is not as according to the Word of God, which was made by men being inspired by the Spirit of God, to write these things as a guide, evidence to who he is and how to live Holy in God.”
“We wholeheartedly endorse the use of the Authorized Version (King James Version) of the Bible as the final authority in our English-speaking churches and schools.”
“We believe that the authorized King James Version of the Bible is the true guide with nothing added to it or taken away.”
“The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved. Why did God inspire a perfect original if he didn’t plan on preserving it?”
All these are from different groups in the OP.“We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He was born of the virgin Mary and the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the inspired Word of God, and that the New Testament is our rule of faith and practice. The King James Bible is the only version to be read in our churches. Other versions are of no more value than a commentary on the scriptures.”
I have not read Daniels but I think I have noticed some make this claim. The best way to prove or disprove it would be to research the writings of those who compiled this confession of faith to see if they say anything about it.KJV-only author David Daniels tries to claim that KJV-only doctrine comes from the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, but he seems to be reading his own KJV-only assumptions into it (51 Reasons for King James, pp. 150-155). Because after mention of the original tongues are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation, it mentions Scriptures and so David Daniels asserts "that these translations are called scriptures" so he assumes that means that they were saying that the translations are given by inspiration of God.
Under your understanding of what constitutes KJV-only, how do you view the KJVO-lite churches who do not say it is inspired, but say to preachers, "No, you cannot use or refer to that Bible when you preach here, you must preach, quote, and reference the King James Version"?It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not preferring the KJV that constitutes a KJV-only view. It is not even considering the KJV to be the best overall English translation that is what constitutes a KJV-only view.