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.
-
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!
Other Christian Denominations and King James Only
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Must have required some work on your part. Thank you for this useful information.
You are welcome.
That list is a combination of some I personally knew about, some I had heard/read about (and searched to see whether they were so), and others I found via Google and other searches on the Web. I would love to increase its size as I find more information.
It is not important in the bigger scheme of things whether these groups are orthodox or heretical. The point is to show that support of the King James Bible is broader than the pigeonhole in which some try to place it. Doug Kutilek and others have made a cottage industry selling the “Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman” origin of the position that favors the King James Bible only. I’m not buying. The idea is older than Wilkinson, and wider than the trajectory in which it is placed (that is, believed by people, even the 20th century, who never heard of Wilkinson, Ray, or Ruckman). I realize that in the new World Wide Web World in which we live, it is unlikely that any current students of “King James Only” (either pro or con) have not heard of these people. However, in the past many already held their position before they ever heard of any of these people.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Agreed. An elderly man once indignantly told someone that reproached him of a Ruckmanite stand concerning the KJB: "my pastor taught me that the KJB is the inspired word of God long before Ruckman showed up".
As a Lebanese child, I recall overhearing my mother saying that the King James was the true Bible long before she had ever heard of "Ruckman".
By the way, I may be wrong, in your list there's
Aren't those "Baptist"?
Good question. I do not consider them so. They were historically, and still retain the word in their name. However, these are churches that came out of the Baptists and organized their own group because they differed with the Baptists on certain doctrines.
I think they could probably be described as a combination of Wesleyan-Holiness, with the Baptist congregationalism and immersion baptism. (And they may not be as "congregational" as Baptists; not sure about that.)
BTW, here is their statement on the Bible:
The Life Bible-Presbyterian Church has a fairly lengthy list of things related to their beliefs about the Bible:
- We do believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for the King James Version of the English Bible (KJV) were providentially preserved by God and are therefore closest to the original autographs of the Bible.
- We do believe that the KJV is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these Hebrew and Greek texts, and is therefore better than all of the other English Translations. We can without apology hold up the KJV and say, ‘This is the Word of God!’ while at the same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture.
- We do employ the KJV alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.
- We do consider as unreliable all Bible versions (e.g. The New International Version or NIV) that modify or change the meaning of the original text or interpret it, instead of giving a literal and accurate translation, and which cast doubts and/or omit verses.
- We do believe “the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme”.
- We do dismiss the theories of Liberal and Modernist scholars who claim that the books of the Bible were edited compilations of stories, legends and ancient writings of many unknown human authors that were gradually adapted, edited, modified and compiled over hundreds of years until they reached their present form.
- We do believe that the only correct way to interpret Scripture is by comparing verses with each other and harmonising their meaning. No part of the Bible ever contradicts another, and the verses that are difficult can be understood with the help of related verses that are easier to understand.
- We do reject the method of interpreting the Scriptures that make the following claim: That one must use only verses that were written earlier than the Bible text being studied in order to shed light on its meaning, since using verses that are written at a later time to do this would result in reading into the text.
What verse supports inspiration of translations then? My Bible states that was only given to those who wrote the Originals books!
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Plenty, and I've showed them before. If you wish to discuss that, sure, begin a thread.
My 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?
Last edited:
You have not showed any verses that clearly teach that Bible translations [after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration] are made by the process of inspiration to prophets and apostles.
You incorrectly appeal to translating that was part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles when it does not at all suggest that the process of inspiration continued after the completion of the New Testament.
Yes, if you want to go that direction - do so.
This Thread is: about "Other Christian Denominations"
NOT about whether the KJV is the only (fill in the blank) translation
So feel free to start a new thread if you wish.
Perhaps another of the Cleveland, Tennessee churches could be added to this list -- the Church of God of Prophecy. Their White Wing Publishing House publishes (or least least published) The Holy Bible: The Authorized King James Bible Vindicated by Victor L. Emerson. However, the book was copyrighted in1989, and I did not find any “King-James-Only”-specific doctrinal statement on their website. So perhaps they no longer hold that view.
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.
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.
- 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.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
I never heard of Wilkinson or Ray. I thought Lester Roloff was KJVO before Ruckman.
Also, plenty of non-native English speakers in the world are KJVO. Come to Beirut and I'll show you.
Anyway, excellently written. Will be using that post.
Perhaps you are trying to pigeonhole or define KJV-only way too broadly. Some of the statements to which you appeal are not necessarily what constitutes a KJV-only view.
It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. 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.
Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used by Bible believers to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive claims for only one English Bible translation—the KJV. Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as a translation. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. Reading only the KJV would not identify the person’s view or beliefs concerning the KJV. 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. What is soundly considered to constitute a KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV (his exclusive only claims for it), not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they also make any exclusive, only claims for this one English translation--the KJV. Someone can consult the Hebrew or Greek texts for clarification and study and still be KJV-only if they also make exclusive claims for only one English translation—the KJV. Someone can read and consult concordances, Bible dictionaries, and commentaries and still be KJV-only. Someone can read another English Bible in order to criticize it and still be KJV-only.
KJV-only defines and describes any person who makes any absolute exclusive only claim for one English translation—the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible could accurately be described as KJV-only.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
You're absolutely right, but
A) he has already touched on those nuances
B) some who say "we only use the KJV" secretly mean "we only believe the KJV".
Do you possibly forget about John Wesley's Bible translation which is said to have been popular in the US?
Peter Ruckman claimed as fact that the Received Text "is the text of Martin Luther's translation, John Wesley's translation, and also every translation that God used on the mission field from 1600 to 1901" (Bible Babel, p. 72). By his own statement, Ruckman in effect stated that the 1755 Wesley's New Testament belongs on his good tree. In his "Biblical line" in his book Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Ruckman included "the evangelistic preaching of Wesley" (p. 172). Ruckman wrote: “Wesley’s life and preaching were ruled by one Book, even though he translated some of his own” (History of N. T. Church, II, p. 26). Laurence Vance, another KJV-only advocate, claimed that Wesley's translation "was based on the Authorized Version" (Brief History, p. 39). William Grady also commended Wesley when he asked: "How do today's scholars compare to men like John Wesley" (Final Authority, p. 175). Doug Stauffer maintained that "John Wesley understood the value of the scriptures" (One Book Stands, p. 271). Timothy Morton observed: "John Wesley (1703-1791), the greater founder of Methodism, preached nearly 42,000 sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ" (Which Translation, p. 47). Bob Bevington wrote that “John Wesley knew the value of holy Scripture” (Bible Broadcaster, March, 2002, p. 2).
David Daniell pointed out that Wesley’s translation “was extremely popular in the USA” (Bible in English, p. 536). William Chamberlin noted that the first American edition of Wesley’s N. T. was printed in Philadelphia in 1791 (Catalogue of English Bible Translations, p. 538). He listed some other American editions as being printed in 1806, 1812, 1818, 1839, 1844, and he indicated that there were “many other” editions (p. 539).
In his introduction to a comparison of Wesley's N. T. to the KJV, Fred Corson wrote: "With a fidelity for the truth, Wesley strove for accuracy, conciseness, and clarity. The validation of his scholarship is attested by the fact that in the revision of the New Testament in 1870 at least three quarters of his twelve thousand changes were accepted and incorporated in the new text" (Wesley's N. T. Compared with the A. V., p. xii).
Wesley's New Testament has "straightway" instead of "by and by" (Matt. 13:21), "strain out" instead of "strain at" (Matt. 23:24), "dismissed his spirit" instead of "yielded up the ghost" (Matt. 27:50), "earnestly" instead of "instantly" (Luke 7:4), "I think not" instead of "I trow not" (Luke 17:9), "obeyeth not the Son" instead of "believeth not the Son" (John 3:36), "flock" instead of "fold" (John 10:16), "grain of wheat" instead of "corn of wheat" (John 12:24), "would" instead of "should" (John 13:11), "Joshua" instead of "Jesus" (Acts 7:45, Heb. 4:8), "church" instead of "churches" (Acts 9:31), "passover" instead of "Easter" (Acts 12:4), "presbyters" instead of "elders" (Acts 14:23), "robbers of temples" instead of "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:37), "love" instead of "charity" (1 Cor. 13:4), "behavior" instead of "conversation" (Gal. 1:13), "fruit of the light" instead of "fruit of the Spirit" (Eph. 5:9), "sodomites" instead of "them that defile themselves with mankind" (1 Tim. 1:10), "new convert" instead of "novice" (1 Tim. 3:6), "Be diligent to present thyself" instead of "Study to shew thyself" (2 Tim. 2:15), "hope" instead of "faith" (Heb. 10:23), "Lord God" instead of "Lord" (Rev. 1:8), "living creature" instead of "beast" (Rev. 6:3), and "tree of life" instead of "book of life" (Rev. 22:19).
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
All that doesn't mean it was a serious challenger to the status of the KJB.
Take it up with James R. White, the BB, and others, for the parameters that have been set to define "KJVO." I did not define them or make them up, though I do think that there are problems with the categorizations that should be addressed. Nevertheless, I think every group in my list fits within White's categorizations. If I did not, I would not have listed them.
No I have not "forgotten" about it. In fact, it was the catalyst for a Baptist association in Tennessee making a KJVO statement in 1817. Among other things, they stated:
But surely you are not claiming Wesley's NT achieved general use among most Christians in the way the KJV, or even the NIV has?