John, this is the best comment in the entire thread. Wikipedia lists 108 complete English Bibles (and they missed the LEB, which makes 109), and the American Bible Society says "the number of printed English translations and paraphrases of the Bible, whether complete or not, is about 900." While there are real differences in and real reasons for different translations -- especially different source material, different translation methodologies and adaptation to changes in the English language -- the proliferation of English Bibles also reveals a lot about the individuality, fickleness, divisiveness of English-speaking Christians (and probably especially American ones). I am impressed (negatively) that there are nearly as many English versions of some sort as there are languages with no Bible. I would be interested in your thoughts on some languages that have the most pressing needs for a Bible and what is being done. (If not appropriate for this thread, perhaps you would start another thread for that subject.)
-
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
Or maybe he just revised his views through interaction with his colleague, Dr. Maurice Robinson. I don't know.
In Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008), which Dr. Black edited, his essay is "Mark 16:9-20 as Markan Supplement." He wrote at the beginning, "I am absolutely convinced that the Longer Ending (Mark 16:9-20) is original based on the external evidence, and that it deserves the canonical status it has enjoyed throughout church history" (p. 103).
Good comments, and that's a good idea for a thread. This thread being almost at the limit, I'll start another thread.
How much and what type preparation is necessary? Does a typical pastor need to understand, Greek? Many would say yes. I would say that with the abundance of commentary readily available by true scholars, study time can much be better spent on other areas. My pastor has a Dr. Of divinity. He does not have a Dr. In Greek, but he had many formal classes in Greek. He makes errors quite regularly in his sermons with his attempt to use Greek. He would be much better off to leave Greek to the true experts and preach out of his NASB and stop trying to tell us "what it really means." I can guarantee you not one person in the congregation cares about his Greek lessons. There is definitely a place for Greek Scholarship, I am just not convinced it is necessary for the average pastor.
Last edited:
That is what leads me to believe that the new English translations are about $$$$$$$$$$$.
Would say that it is better to have the training in original languages than not, but that much more important would be the prayer and personal life of the pastor, for there are many who can quote and read the Greek, but have a hard time making sure it gets applied!
The current edition of the KJVO myth is based upon 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, (which was written in response to a squabble within his cult, not to start a new doctrine) and its being copied and hyped by several later "authors" using modern media to promote their wares. It's just a collection of old KJVO ideas, coupled with the fault-finding in newer versions by newer generations of KJVOs. It's the same ole garbage in a newly-painted dumpster.
However, a key, cardinal question KJVOs cannot answer correctly is BY WHAT AUTHORITY do they believe KJVO. it is NOT found in the KJV itself, nor in any of its sources. As baptists, we believe SCRIPTURE is the highest authority we have on earth for all matters of faith and worship, and there's so hint of KJVO in Scripture, by the least quark of the slightest implication.
Therefore, KJVO is simply another false, extra-Scriptural man-made doctrine. But, unfortunately, as several of you have said, it'll continue on, but I believe, it'll be much-more diminished as time passes. (After all, there are still "Flat-Earthers"!)
However, a key, cardinal question KJVOs cannot answer correctly is BY WHAT AUTHORITY do they believe KJVO. it is NOT found in the KJV itself, nor in any of its sources. As baptists, we believe SCRIPTURE is the highest authority we have on earth for all matters of faith and worship, and there's so hint of KJVO in Scripture, by the least quark of the slightest implication.
Therefore, KJVO is simply another false, extra-Scriptural man-made doctrine. But, unfortunately, as several of you have said, it'll continue on, but I believe, it'll be much-more diminished as time passes. (After all, there are still "Flat-Earthers"!)
Glenn, welcome to the Baptist Board. I look forward to reading your thoughts, and hope you find the Board beneficial to you as well.
Lest we forget the anchor belief system of the KJVO movement was for the most part the product of Dr Peter Ruckman.
The core beliefs:
Secondary inspiration: In effect: The KJV translators were granted inspiration of translation in like manner as the prophets and apostles were granted direct inspiration of the scriptures.
"The English corrects the Greek and Hebrew" (sic).
Advanced Revelation: Unbeknown to the KJV translators knowledge and prophetic statements were advanced by the Holy Spirit into the 1611 English text. e.g. Ruckman's argument concerning the Acts "easter" passage as "advanced revelation".
This post is not to revive any KJVO debates which have been beaten into the ground and easily defeated as error.
BUT
IMO it is not correct to label KPVp or NKJVp as hidden or closet KJVO those who completely reject these core Ruckman dogma yet they hold to what Van calls the KJV "corruptions" (I don't except for 1 John 5:7).
My own personal preference is based upon English translations of the TR of which there are several, most (perhaps all) of which come under the umbrella of the "Traditional Text" (Burgon's assignment). In particular my choice is the 1894-5 Scrivener - a distillation/composite of the several underlying Greek texts used in the 1611 KJV English translation into a singular unified Greek text.
To be forthright, FWIW there was a time in my youth when I was a tried and true KJVO devotee.
Alas, I went to Bible college which according to my KJVO leaders "ruined me" as I ultimately rejected the Ruckman dogma of Secondary Inspiration and Advanced Revelation and left the movement and associated churches (although I have no qualms about occasionally fellowshipping with them).
HankD
The core beliefs:
Secondary inspiration: In effect: The KJV translators were granted inspiration of translation in like manner as the prophets and apostles were granted direct inspiration of the scriptures.
"The English corrects the Greek and Hebrew" (sic).
Advanced Revelation: Unbeknown to the KJV translators knowledge and prophetic statements were advanced by the Holy Spirit into the 1611 English text. e.g. Ruckman's argument concerning the Acts "easter" passage as "advanced revelation".
This post is not to revive any KJVO debates which have been beaten into the ground and easily defeated as error.
BUT
IMO it is not correct to label KPVp or NKJVp as hidden or closet KJVO those who completely reject these core Ruckman dogma yet they hold to what Van calls the KJV "corruptions" (I don't except for 1 John 5:7).
My own personal preference is based upon English translations of the TR of which there are several, most (perhaps all) of which come under the umbrella of the "Traditional Text" (Burgon's assignment). In particular my choice is the 1894-5 Scrivener - a distillation/composite of the several underlying Greek texts used in the 1611 KJV English translation into a singular unified Greek text.
To be forthright, FWIW there was a time in my youth when I was a tried and true KJVO devotee.
Alas, I went to Bible college which according to my KJVO leaders "ruined me" as I ultimately rejected the Ruckman dogma of Secondary Inspiration and Advanced Revelation and left the movement and associated churches (although I have no qualms about occasionally fellowshipping with them).
HankD
I'm not so sure Wilkinson is the source for a lot of what the movement teaches. I would point to Jasper Ray as a more important source.
God promised that he would leave to His church the scriptures, so He did not do that until 1611?
And even the translators of the Kjv did not see themselves as either inspired, nor making a flawless version!
In a blog post on the Beginning of the KJV-Only Movement, W. W. Combs writes, "if I had to pick a specific date for the beginning of the KJV-only movement, it would be May 17, 1881" (publication of the RV-NT). In a follow-up post, he calls Dean John Wililam Burgon the Father of the KJV-Only Movement. Combs recognizes that Burgon was not KJVO (or even TRO), but believes his writings and views "have become the foundational principles for KJV-only advocates." He mentions Philip Mauro's book Which Version? Authorized or Revised? demonstrating the presence of KJV-only sympathies in the USA in the early part of the 20th century (this book was not on my radar). In his next piece on the modern KJVO movement he shows that there was not much of a "movement" until the publication of the RSV. He writes "From then on a stream of KJV-only literature began to appear." He mentions Ray, Hills, Fuller, and Ruckman -- but not Wilkinson. [To me it would seem that Wilkinson was too early, when there was no steam, and out of the "mainstream" (SDA). My thinking is that his book would be a secondary influence on Baptists and fundamentalists through those who went back later and read his work.]
Last edited:
One direct or indirect source of some of the information in many later KJV-only books was the book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin George Wilkinson (1872-1968), Dean of Theology at a Seventh-Day Adventist college (Seventh-Day Adventist Encyclopedia, p. 1609).
Wilkinson's claims were repeated in David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible, which included several chapters from the book by Wilkinson. David Fuller did not tell the readers of his book that Wilkinson was a Seventh-Day Adventist. He deleted a footnote where Wilkinson quoted Ellen G. White favorably in order to conceal Wilkinson's identity as a cultist (Baptist Biblical Heritage, Summer, 1990, p. 1). It was through Fuller's book that many would read much of Wilkinson's book.
Much of Wilkinson's misinformation can also be found in J. J. Ray's book God Wrote Only One Bible. In his book Forever Settled, which is used as a textbook in some KJV-only schools, recommended highly by David Cloud, and published by D. A. Waite, Jack Moorman used Wilkinson as his authority at least twenty times, sometimes quoting whole pages. In his book An Understandable History of the Bible, Samuel Gipp quoted from Wilkinson favorably around twenty times without once mentioning that Wilkinson was a cultist. Other KJV-only advocates have also quoted Wilkinson favorably without revealing his identity as a Seventh-Day Adventist. D. A. Waite's ministry The Bible for Today reprinted Wilkinson's book without any mention of his being an Adventist. In his 1971 book entitled The Case for the King James Version of the Bible, Waite favorably quoted Wilkinson several times.
Logos, I think we are saying generally the same thing. I didn't write my last sentence well. What I'm thinking is that Wilkinson did not have so much influence for a KJV-Only movement when his book was written in 1930 -- except maybe among SDA's who agreed with him -- but that his influence was brought to bear through those who read him and repeated what he said, as you note above.
One of the leading arguments for a KJV-only theory [the two streams of Bibles, two lines of Bibles, or two trees of Bibles] in many KJV-only books may have been first used or introduced by Benjamin Wilkinson in his book.
Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson was one of the first [possibly the first] to use the two-streams-of-Bibles argument in his 1930 book (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43). Benjamin Wilkinson asserted: “Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles,” and he claimed that “down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts“ (p. 12). Wilkinson referred to “two parallel streams of Bibles,“ and then listed texts or Bibles in his claimed two streams (p. 43).
Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson was one of the first [possibly the first] to use the two-streams-of-Bibles argument in his 1930 book (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43). Benjamin Wilkinson asserted: “Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles,” and he claimed that “down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts“ (p. 12). Wilkinson referred to “two parallel streams of Bibles,“ and then listed texts or Bibles in his claimed two streams (p. 43).
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:30 AM Pacific
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:30 AM Pacific
Checking for information on Mauro's book, I found someone had put it online.
Which Version? Authorized or Revised?
Mauro's book preceded Wilkinson by about 6 years, but I'm not sure if it was influential. If I had heard of it before, I had forgotten about it.
[Note added: I did forget! It is printed in David Otis Fuller’s True or False?]
Last edited:
One "branch" of the KJVO movement, if it can be called that, is among churches that are isolated geographically and (somewhat) theologically. For example, churches such as Old Regular Baptist, Regular Baptist and United Baptist in the Appalachias have had little influence (until recent years) from the "outside" world. Most of these are KJV users and tend to be what would be recognized as KJV-Only, yet have for the most part moved along with the Bible they knew without ever hearing of D. A. Waite, E. F. Hills, Benjamin Wilkinson, Peter Ruckman, and so on -- or their views on Bible versions.
- Status