The Movement has been a blight upon Christianity, and used by satan to try to divide the body! KJVO and Charasmatic Movements both deserve to be put into the grave!It is my judgment that the KJV Only movement is fractured and discredited (as a movement, not speaking of individual IFB churches). As evidence, note that the Dean Burgon Society is fractured. They found out that Riplinger had been divorced twice, so they split with her, quit selling her stuff, and wrote books against her.
Again, this year Ruckman died. It remains to see what will happen to his little Bible institute and his publishing company, but I predict a downtrend due to the fact that there appears to be no heir apparent (unless you count Samuel Gipp).
One DBS faction started the William Carey Bible Society, which never supported any Bible translators to my knowledge. In a huge irony (judging by how they attacked me when I was a missionary to Japan for simply giving a bad Amazon review to the Williams book on translating), their website has been taken over by a Japanese company in the "water trade" (immoral activities, run by Yakuza gangsters), with articles about how to handle security in the "water trade."
-
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!
The KJVO Movement Is Headed Down
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
As an individual, your opinion is accepted as your view. However, comma, the view of most modern scholars such as Dr. Wallace, is that the Johnannine Comma at 1 John 5:7 is a corruption of the text. Thus it is not found in many modern versions such as the NASB95, the LEB and the WEB. As others have noted, the beauty of expression in the NKJV, vastly outshines other modern updates of the KJV. If they would have corrected the corruptions using the Byzantine Text, it would make a fine study bible. As it is, the objective student needs to verify using the WEB that the passage under study is not a corruption.
In August it will be sixteen years since I showed up on the BB... I read and study and quote from my KJV daily, since the age of 13, I'm now 71... I had no idea there was a KJVO battle until I showed up here. I told someone on another board the brethren of the KJVP seem to always get sucked into this fight... There are KJV brethren who just want to be left alone and we don't care what version you read but we prefer the KJV... The quote above by JOJ explains exactly how I feel... Remember I am of the KJVP brethren and the P also stands for Peace... Brother Glen
Van, this thread is about a movement. It is not about a specific textual question.
All the blight and division and rancor hasn't come just from those who are King James Only.
Amen, Brother. There are a large number of people who use, prefer and intend to keep using the King James Bible but don't have a battalion serving in the Bible Versions war.In August it will be sixteen years since I showed up on the BB... I read and study and quote from my KJV daily, since the age of 13, I'm now 71... I had no idea there was a KJVO battle until I showed up here. I told someone on another board the brethren of the KJVP seem to always get sucked into this fight... There are KJV brethren who just want to be left alone and we don't care what version you read but we prefer the KJV... The quote above by JOJ explains exactly how I feel... Remember I am of the KJVP brethren and the P also stands for Peace... Brother Glen
There are some who are not just anti-KJVO, but are anti-King James.
Perhaps the following won't be out of order here, which is exceprted from a blog post I wrote awhile back:
Maybe I'm out of touch. I think the average conservative Christian -- regardless of what he or she thinks about the various versions -- generally considers that what he or she reads and studies is reliable as the word of God, and approaches Bible study that way. We risk hurting them by extended diatribes over the unreliability of this or that version just because we don't prefer it. Let us use caution. The "Bible Wars" – KJV versus modern versions – usually flame up much more heat than light. Whether it is trashing the KJV or accusing modern translators of being Satan’s siblings, this approach does little or no good for the average Christian. Wou, whether you be a KJV-Only extremist or an anti-KJV elitist: tone down your rhetoric and consider your "weaker" brothers and sisters in Christ. Attacks on the Bible rather than on extremist positions about the Bible can undermine people's faith in their Bible, whichever one they are using. Will we destroy our brothers, for whom Christ died?
Maybe I'm out of touch. I think the average conservative Christian -- regardless of what he or she thinks about the various versions -- generally considers that what he or she reads and studies is reliable as the word of God, and approaches Bible study that way. We risk hurting them by extended diatribes over the unreliability of this or that version just because we don't prefer it. Let us use caution. The "Bible Wars" – KJV versus modern versions – usually flame up much more heat than light. Whether it is trashing the KJV or accusing modern translators of being Satan’s siblings, this approach does little or no good for the average Christian. Wou, whether you be a KJV-Only extremist or an anti-KJV elitist: tone down your rhetoric and consider your "weaker" brothers and sisters in Christ. Attacks on the Bible rather than on extremist positions about the Bible can undermine people's faith in their Bible, whichever one they are using. Will we destroy our brothers, for whom Christ died?
Those advocating KJVO are indeed a blight, as they judge all others who do not see things their way as being wrong... And also seek to divide true from false christians based upon just that!
The more I ponder the above the more I think about the dilemma those early fundamental baptists faced.
The first generation was educated in the Northern Baptist schools such as Northern Baptist Seminary and the University of Chicago Divinity School.
But when the fundamentalists separated from the old NBC they separated from the schools they, themselves, had attended.
So the next generation did not have such schools to attend and were forced to seek their educations in local church bible institutes or non-denominational schools such as Moody Bible Institute.
And that forced them into a form of "English Onlyism" based on their lack of understanding of Hebrew and Greek. And when the new translations came along habit reinforced their belief in the KJV as the word of God in English.
It was not until the next generation grew to post-secondary school age that Northwestern was founded by W.B. Riley, and Toronto Baptist Seminary finally grew out of being a local church bible institute. The controversy and split in 1948 had detracted from the school's ability to attract students.
It was not until our generation (Keith and I are old guys) that academically excellent, accredited bible colleges and seminaries became the rule rather than the exception among fundamental baptists with NBC roots. That would include Central Baptist Seminary under the late R. V. Clearwaters, San Francisco Baptist Seminary under the late G. Archer Wenigar, and others.
Unfortunately, as of today, most, if not all, of the schools started by or associated with the Conservative Baptist Association and the GARBC (Western Baptist College, Cedarville Baptist College, Grand Rapids Baptist College, etc.) have slipped away into an ecumenical parody of fundamentalism displaying the very worst characteristics of the Neo-Evangelicalism of modern American Christendom.
It has taken baptist fundamentalism almost 100 years to recover from the damage done by Modernism and Ecumenicalism.
Even the Southern Baptist Convention, which began its slide into compromise, apostasy, and Modernism as early as 1940 and began a struggle with the conservatives that started around 1960, has now come a long way from those dark days. But it took until 1980 for conservatives to gain control of the Convention, and even longer to purge the seminaries of the Theological Liberalism that had dominated since the 1940s. And that purging continued through 2005.
But the cost has been very high. 1900 congregations left the SBC for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. So many missionaries were forced to resign due to the requirement to sign the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message in place of the 1963 BF&M that for the first time ever, Independent Baptists now send more missionaries to the foreign field than the SBC.
The cost of Theological Liberalism is just too high.
The situation is that extremists KJO comes from the point that KJO is a non- negotiable doctrine - and is in the same circle as the Virgin Birth, the perfect life Christ, and the resurrection.
On the other end are those who use other versions - but most will not disparage those who are KJO.
King James was an evil man --a deviant. It's a shame that a Bible translation was named after him.
It should have been called something like the 1611 William Tyndale Revision.
Think about what you said, "some are anti-King James" meaning the 1611 revision.
Some simply do not like that version for multiple reasons.
Are some anti-NIV? Of course. They may dislike it for a number of reasons.
If it is wrong to dislike the KJV, it is equally wrong to dislike the NIV.
Remember to be consistent.
The line, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, refers to calling something by a different name but does not alter the essence of the thing. KJVP is just another name for KJVO folks, and so the movement may be going down as in underground, rather than away.
Perhaps you are right about most, but here are an example of disparaging the KJV and those who use it.
It's not unusual to hear this kind of stuff if you use the KJV.
My thought is not really about liking or disliking. Most people within my realm of experience (and I'm not talking about the Baptist Board) tend to couch their objections to the King James Version in language that says they are opposing King James Onlyism. If they object they should be straightforward about it.
I think the approach I advocated in post #49 is consistent. I discuss Bible versions on the Baptist Board, but don't spend time in the pulpit or my blog "disliking" modern versions like the NIV. I think this is one of the downsides of those who promote the King James Version (especially on the World Wide Web). Many online writings that are about the King James Bible are diatribes against modern Bible versions and offer little to nothing in the way of positive promotion of the KJV or helpful suggestions to the reader of the KJV.
Yes, I do mean "is". Thanks. The context of the answer was not about the NIV, but Salty saying that this is not usually said about the KJV -- "most will not disparage those who are KJO."
Are you then advocating that one abuse should be met with another?
Last edited:
- Status