Testing the "Seven Times Purified Theory"

[Michael Hollner]

Very good. That's one. But I asked for "quotes" plural. If you got this from David Cloud (Old Time Fundamentalists Who Defended the King James Bible), the others on the page did not teach a perfect KJV doctrine.

At any rate, Ruckman is the one who started the modern KJVO movement in 1970 with his book The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. There was no movement per se before Ruckman. I do note that Which Bible? ed. by David Otis Fuller also came out in 1970, so it contributed.

'Very good. That's one. But I asked for "quotes" plural'

There is a lot more than one John. I am surprised you do not know that. I will let you dig further on that, but I agree with L. Vance in his ‘King James, His Bible, and it’s Translators’ (2016, pp.261-269) that the KJVO movement started with King James in 1611 and has been around for centuries!

I just read this one.....

“I furthermore say, that [the] King James Translation of the Bible is the only Divinely Inspired Translation directly, since the compilation of the ancient manuscripts by Ezra, and the giving of the New Testament by the Apostles” (W.W. Simkins: The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James’ Translation, In Use By All Protestants” Betzer & Gregoire, Printers, 1882 p. 42).

 

[John of Japan]

'

There is a lot more than one John. I am surprised you do not know that. I will let you dig further on that, but I agree with L. Vance in his ‘King James, His Bible, and it’s Translators’ (2016, pp.261-269) that the KJVO movement started with King James in 1611 and has been around for centuries!

Forgive me, but I think Vance's statement is ridiculous. How could a movement start immediately when a translation is finished? I've been involved with Bible translation for 20 years (not bragging, not saying if I'm good or bad with it) and never heard of such a thing happening. I have about 30 books on the KJVO movement (don't have Vance) and none of them say that.

I just read this one.....
“I furthermore say, that [the] King James Translation of the Bible is the only Divinely Inspired Translation directly, since the compilation of the ancient manuscripts by Ezra, and the giving of the New Testament by the Apostles” (W.W. Simkins: The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James’ Translation, In Use By All Protestants” Betzer & Gregoire, Printers, 1882 p. 42).

I'm impressed. You've proved your point. But I will say, I've never heard of those guys, so I'm pretty sure they were off in the corner of evangelicalism somewhere, if they were even evangelicals. (I did ask for evangelical quotes. Are these guys really evangelicals, or just Church of England?)

 

[Michael Hollner]

I'm impressed. You've proved your point. But I will say, I've never heard of those guys, so I'm pretty sure they were off in the corner of evangelicalism somewhere, if they were even evangelicals. (I did ask for evangelical quotes. Are these guys really evangelicals, or just Church of England?)

Not sure of all the various beliefs but it was even in the mainstream among the public. I got a hold of a Newspaper ad (below) from 1891 claiming the new version and its scholarship was an 'assault of the devil.' No kidding. I am currently gathering more info on this.

 

[37818]

We must remember that all Bible translations are products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men. We point out the KJV's goofs to disprove the "KJV is perfect" claims by KJVOs. No other English BV claims to be perfect, but only that "We have given our best efforts to make the best translation we could", same as the AV makers did.

You have avoided the fact that most modern translations have more variant readings from the common handed down Greek New Testament text than the AV does. One of the reasons behind the KJVO complete failure.

 

[John of Japan]

Not sure of all the various beliefs but it was even in the mainstream among the public. I got a hold of a Newspaper ad (below) from 1891 claiming the new version and its scholarship was an 'assault of the devil.' No kidding. I am currently gathering more info on this.

View attachment 6664

Very interesting. But I don't see how a newspaper ad proves that "it was even in the mainstream among the public."

 

[JD731]

There have been disagreements about mss. since long before our time, But we must remember, none of us were present when they were written, & we don't know who wrote most of them, & when. Therefore we have no grounds upon which to accept or decline.

Would this apply to the manuscripts the KJV translators were looking at when they wrote Re 16:5 and Acts 12:4?

 

[Michael Hollner]

Very interesting. But I don't see how a news paper ad proves that "it was even in the mainstream among the public."

Perhaps so if it was just one ad. But I have about 15 of them and I am putting them all together for an article not finished yet. If you're interested email me at writethevisionministry@gmail.com and I will link it to you when it's complete and proofed. I will also have a few dozen or more quotes of which you asked for. The more I dig, it looks like a few others have really done their research on this and beat me to it.

Blessings.....

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:15 PM Pacific.

 

[robycop3]

'So please give me quotes from anyone, even just one evangelical before Ruckman who believed the KJV was a perfect translation.'

“As for me, I will take the King James translation as the very Word of God for the English people. I believe it is without error. It is 100 percent correct. People who do not know a word of Greek can become real Bible scholars. Many times their understanding is far greater than the Greek scholars.” (B.F. Dearmore (1897-1968), The Message, "Greek Versus English," May 28, 1959).

We have pointed out a few of its errors right here in this thread, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, a phrase not found in any known ancient Greek manuscripts containing Revelation. People can become better bible scholars by reading it in their common language with many of the goofs& booboos in earlier versions removed.

 

[robycop3]

You have avoided the fact that most modern translations have more variant readings from the common handed down Greek New Testament text than the AV does. One of the reasons behind the KJVO complete failure.

So ?

 

[37818]

Re 16:5

Here is the difficulty with the KJV reading for Revelation 16:5: While the KJV reading is in agreement with, Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8, Revelation 4:8 and Revelation 11:17, it does not demonstrate the more common reading of Revelation 16:5 is not the needed statement of it's truth. ". . . Thou art righteous, which art, and wast, thou Holy One, because thou hast judged thus. . . ."

 

[37818]

So ?

The AV with all it's known faults is still better overall.

 

[John of Japan]

Perhaps so if it was just one ad. But I have about 15 of them and I am putting them all together for an article not finished yet. If you're interested email me at writethevisionministry@gmail.com and I will link it to you when it's complete and proofed. I will also have a few dozen or more quotes of which you asked for. The more I dig, it looks like a few others have really done their research on this and beat me to it.

Blessings.....

Thanks. I'll take you up on that offer.

 

[robycop3]

Would this apply to the manuscripts the KJV translators were looking at when they wrote Re 16:5 and Acts 12:4?

Why not, even though they used Beza's revision of the TR for mosta their NT, including his ADDITION to Scripture?

 

[robycop3]

Here is the difficulty with the KJV reading for Revelation 16:5: While the KJV reading is in agreement with, Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8, Revelation 4:8 and Revelation 11:17, it does not demonstrate the more common reading of Revelation 16:5 is not the needed statement of it's truth. ". . . Thou art righteous, which art, and wast, thou Holy One, because thou hast judged thus. . . ."

If it's not in the verse being translated, it doesn't matter mow many others it's in. If it's ADDED in a given verse, it's WRONG.

 

[robycop3]

The AV with all it's known faults is still better overall.

No, it's NOT. It's not even in OUR common language. Nobody but Shakespearean actors use that English style any more, & they only do at work.

 

[John of Japan]

The idea of an actual KJVO movement in Texas early in the 20th century is intriguing, but at this point I'm skeptical. I've read five biographies of various lengths of Texas preacher John R. Rice (1896-1980), and written another of my own necessitating copious research on Texas Baptists. I've read a book by J. Frank Norris and a couple of biographies about him. (Check out In the Name of God, by O. S. Hawkins, about the conflicts between J. Frank and George W. Truett. A great read on Texas Baptist history!) I've read a bunch of fundamentalist history volumes, and teach church history myself. (This is not bragging. I'm not saying I do a good job, just that I teach it. ) And I've never read a smidgeon about a KJVO movement prior to 1970.

 

[37818]

No, it's NOT. It's not even in OUR common language. Nobody but Shakespearean actors use that English style any more, & they only do at work.

What is the NKJV for?

 

[37818]

If it's not in the verse being translated, it doesn't matter mow many others it's in. If it's ADDED in a given verse, it's WRONG.

Most all the so called modern translations are worse.

 

[Logos1560]

I agree with L. Vance in his ‘King James, His Bible, and it’s Translators’ (2016, pp.261-269) that the KJVO movement started with King James in 1611 and has been around for centuries!

Laurence Vance had been associated with Peter Ruckman. Because he claimed that the KJV-only movement started with King James in 1611 does not make it true. KJV-only advocates believe claims for the KJV that are not true.

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators actually rejected the one-perfect-translation theory of their day [the Latin Vulgate-only theory], and they clearly suggested that no Bible translation would be perfect. The dedication to King James in the 1611 actually referred to the KJV as being one more exact translation [not the only one], meaning one more like the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible. Several of the KJV translators continued to preach from a different translation than the KJV after 1611.