Featured The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down

Don't dismiss KJVOism too quickly. It seems to have 9 lives, like a cat.

Clear back 100 years ago KJVOism was mentioned in W. B. Riley's book, "The Menace of Modernism." What he said may be prophetic.

W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience."

Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand.

100 years ago Dr. Riley believed the KJVO movement was on its deathbed. Yet, 100 years later, it is still here with us.

Never under estimate the longevity of ignorance!

 

I certainly hope so!

 

If the issue is TROnly, I would have to ask, "Which TR? There are around 33 of them, all different."

Add to that the "TR" most of the TROnly people claim is vested with so-called "Verbal plenary preservation," and is the only valid TR, have chosen a TR that did not exist until very late in the 19th century, which begs the question, "Where was the word of God prior to Scrivener's TR?"

Just to clarify, I am Byantine Preferred in that I believe the textual evidence supports the Byzantine textform being most likely to represent the autographs for reasons too lengthy to expound here. But that does not mean I dismiss the Alexandrian textform. After all, it agrees with the Byzantine textform around 95% of the time. And very few of the variants make any significant difference.

How this affects my daily life is minimally. My daily bible reading is in the NKJV. My study is generally in the WEB. Both of those are Byzantine based New Testaments.

But the church I attend uses the ESV, and I have no problem at all following along and reading the ESV text from the overhead screens.

(I do admit the ESV makes me a little nervous in that it was edited from the old RSV of 1948/1952, done by modernists, and even not-very-conservative evangelicals called it "The version we all love to hate." But I manage to overcome my bias and follow along as it is preached.)

 

Your disdain not withstanding, the KJV is a very good translation. And much of the archaic language is there for a reason.

The various pronouns, Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, Ye, and You, were brought forward from Late Middle English to preserve the number (singular or plural) and case (Subject, Object, Possessive, Predicate Nominative) of the pronouns which no longer exists in Modern English having been replaced by a generic "you" or "your."

The rule of thumb is that if it starts with a "y" it is plural and with a "th" it is singular.

The same is true of the "est" "eth" (or "st" and "th") endings.

They were also carried over from Late Middle English to indicate the person of the word.

Have. Hast. Hath. The common spelling is first person, the second person has the "s" in it (remember, "s" means "second" person), and the third person has the "t" (remember, "t" means "third" person).

As the Greek has different words to indicate the above it was thought by the KJV translators that information was important to bring into English. Today, if number is not obvious from the context, it is necessary to check the Greek to determine the number of those pronouns.

For instance: WEB 1 Corinthians 6:19 Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.

KJV 1Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye (plural) not that your (plural) body (singular) is the temple (singular) of the Holy Ghost which is in you (plural), which ye have of God, and ye (plural) are not your own?

Inclusive language or something else? And without the KJV a non Greek reader would not know.

 

I was at MBU in the Burgeon Society's salad days. I got the sense that men like Waite, Hollowood, Cedarholm, and Fuller were ticked that their position was being slighted by Custer and BJU. Nothing like a scholar scorned to start a kerfluffle.