When Did KJVO come Into Church?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

John 1v1-10 KJV1611

In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn. The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue. Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light. That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world. Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(Joh 1:1-10)

John 1v1-10 KJV1769

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(Joh 1:1-10)

Do these really have a 'vague similarity at best?'

 

[humblethinker]

Not sure, but it definitely wasn't before 1611. :laugh:

I agree, but I would say that the spirit was there in the form of LVVO.

 

[go2church]

It's okay to simply say I like the KJV best. You don't have to give a explanation or create a mythical doctrine to justify your preference. You like it that's fine. Please stop with the ridiculous games of preservation, readability, accuracy and the like, God is not honored in such falsehoods.

 

[humblethinker]

I'd say the KJVO position really came about during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early 20th century. There were a bunch of new translations being produced and many were being used by modernist proponents. Many within the fundamentalist camp (J Frank Norris, J Wilbur Chapman, Isaac Massey Hadelman, etc) were threatened by the scholarship and, seemingly, attachment to liberalism.

I challenge you on your claim about J Frank Norris being threatened by scholarship, etc. While he used the KJV (like most everyone else of the time), I think there is ample evidence that he wasn't KJVO, but those who inherited the movement became such. May I recommend what I found to be a great read on the subject?

"J. Frank Norris and His Heirs: the Bible Translation Controversy"
by Doug Kutilek. 165 pp, paperback.
The modern "King James Only" movement has spread among diverse groups of Baptists and beyond, but it had its first and probably most significant impact among Baptist groups descended from and influenced by J. Frank Norris (1877-1952), namely the World Baptist Fellowship (WBF), the Baptist Bible Fellowship (BBF) and the Independent Baptist Fellowship (IBF). (The BBF and the IBF are both splits off of the WBF, the IBF being formed expressly in the 1980s to adopt a rigid KJV-only view). To some degree in the 1960s, but especially in the 1970s and 1980s, the KJV-only doctrine was widely embraced in these groups, and was claimed by its advocates as the historic, orthodox Baptist doctrine regarding Scripture.

The design of Kutilek's historical study is to examine what Dr. Norris himself was taught and personally believed regarding Bible texts and Bible translations. It is shown by thorough documentation that Norris never embraced any of the tenets of KJV-onlyism, and that the groups descended from him were not KJV only in their foundation, nor was there any formal or practical adoption of this view until the 1970s and beyond.

Full documentation is included to trace the process by which these Baptist groups, founded on a belief in the inerrancy of the original writings only, and with a specific rejection of the doctrine of infallible translations, departed from their historic roots and the beliefs of Dr. Norris, to embrace an alien view that neither they nor their fathers had known. KJV-onlyism was a radical departure from the historic faith of Norris, the WBF and the BBF. The IBF, which began as a KJV-only group, is ironically the group which at one and the same claims closest connection to Norris and yet departs the farthest from him on the doctrine of Scripture.​

 

[Amy.G]

Do these really have a 'vague similarity at best?'

The two editions are almost identical. Not even worth the bandwidth to argue it. It's common knowledge that Rippon does not like the KJV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

... God is not honored in such falsehoods.

God is not honoured with exaggerated claims on either side of this debate.

 

[dcorbett]

then the whole topic should be done with, I agree that to start a thread which attempts to criticize those of us who prefer and love the King James Version is not God-honoring.

 

[Rippon]

It's common knowledge that Rippon does not like the KJV.

It's not in my top twenty of favorite Bible translations. But it's not really accurate to say that I don't like it. If stuck on a deserted island I would prefer it to The Message,CEV,NCV,TEV,the old LB etc.

There are simply better choices out there these days in English Bible translations.

I do appreciate the KJV in that a lot of verses from it have been stockpiled in my mind.

I think that William Tyndale has not been given his due. All this current attention on the KJV's 400th anniversary,but W.T.did did most of the work. The KJV did not suddenly come down like a bolt from the blue. The KJV revisers simply touched up Tyndale's groundbreaking effort. However,some of the touchups were better left untouched.

 

[Mexdeaf]

then the whole topic should be done with, I agree that to start a thread which attempts to criticize those of us who prefer and love the King James Version is not God-honoring.

Popping in to say the OP in no way was criticizing anyone. It simply asked a question. That is all.

 

[sag38]

then the whole topic should be done with, I agree that to start a thread which attempts to criticize those of us who prefer and love the King James Version is not God-honoring.

Please do show us where anyone has been criticized for preferring or loving the KJV. Where has anyone criticized you personally for this? What is criticized is KJVOnlyism which a God dishonoring false doctrine. Those who love this false doctrine should be criticized because they are perpetuating a lie. Why do you have such a hard time separating the two? U

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

then the whole topic should be done with, I agree that to start a thread which attempts to criticize those of us who prefer and love the King James Version is not God-honoring.

Where has anyone been criticized for loving the KJV? Please point out that post. If you can point out a post when anyone has criticized people who prefer and love the KJV I will deal with it.

 

[Rippon]

Where has anyone been criticized for loving the KJV? Please point out that post. If you can point out a post when anyone has criticized people who prefer and love the KJV I will deal with it.

Her repeated claims are nonexistent. She will not be able to document anything that she constantly charges.

 

[humblethinker]

I think that William Tyndale has not been given his due. All this current attention on the KJV's 400th anniversary,but W.T.did did most of the work. The KJV did not suddenly come down like a bolt from the blue. The KJV revisers simply touched up Tyndale's groundbreaking effort. However,some of the touchups were better left untouched.

:applause::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Back to the original question

I have lived through most of the period covered by the original question. As best as I can figure it, the seed for the debate\movement was planted with the publishing of Wescott and Hort New Testament Text. It germenated with the pubilishing in the 1880s of the RV based on the W-H text. This translation was the first popular English translation based on a non-TR text.

For the next ninety or years, the debate was pretty much an academic one. There was a bit of a dust up with the publishing of the RSV in the early 50s. But, that version was pretty much rejected by Evangelicals\Fundamentalists as a product of Liberal\Modernist scholarship.

And then the NASB came on the scene. Though, the NASB's used an eclectic Greek text, its translators were solid Evangelical scholars. So far, so good. But, the promotional material was a bit over the top. And its promoters were a bit tone deaf to the objections being raised by otherwise even keeled men. Lines were drawn and here we are today.

 

[rsr]

While the RSV didn't make much headway in evangelical circles, it was widely used by mainline denominations and thus can be considered a flash point in the controversy. Its rendering of almah as young woman created a furor that helped stoke the movement.

You might also consider the publication of the Good News Bible in the 1970s by the American Bible Society, which also translated almah as young woman, which -- along with its translational philosophy -- alienated many fundamentalists.

 

[Rippon]

I have lived through most of the period covered by the original question. As best as I can figure it, the seed for the debate\movement was planted with the publishing of Wescott and Hort New Testament Text. It germenated with the pubilishing in the 1880s of the RV based on the W-H text. This translation was the first popular English translation based on a non-TR text.

It wasn't based on the W&H text. It was based on a text by Edwin Palmer who used to be the Bishop of Bombay.

For the next ninety or years, the debate was pretty much an academic one. There was a bit of a dust up with the publishing of the RSV in the early 50s. But, that version was pretty much rejected by Evangelicals\Fundamentalists as a product of Liberal\Modernist scholarship.

And then the NASB came on the scene. Though, the NASB's used an eclectic Greek text, its translators were solid Evangelical scholars. So far, so good. But, the promotional material was a bit over the top. And its promoters were a bit tone deaf to the objections being raised by otherwise even keeled men. Lines were drawn and here we are today.

The ASV of 1901 was translated by solid Evangelical scholars also.

 

[Rippon]

While the RSV didn't make much headway in evangelical circles, it was widely used by mainline denominations and thus can be considered a flash point in the controversy. Its rendering of almah as young woman created a furor that helped stoke the movement.

You might also consider the publication of the Good News Bible in the 1970s by the American Bible Society, which also translated almah as young woman, which -- along with its translational philosophy -- alienated many fundamentalists.

I recall that the NASBU has a marginal note that says an alternative rendering possibility is young woman.

 

[go2church]

The TNIV and NIV 2011 use "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, considered by most to be a conservative rereading of the New Testament doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus back into the Old Testament, but still acceptable to most.

The NRSV and a new translation Common English Bible, among a few others, accurately translate Isaiah 7:14 as "young women"

This is a flash point for many as they see it as an attack on the virgin birth of Christ. Which has served as kindling for a KJV only stance starting in the 50's with the publication of the RSV. Up to this point such nonsense was relegated to extreme fringes of religious life.

The RSV came out during the rise of fundamentalism, the height of the Red Scare and the battle of segregation going on around the country, especially the south. It had a RED colored cover and was the first widely used translation to use "young women". It was on like Donkey-Kong and the KJV only fires have blazed ever since.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I stand corrected

on the underlying Greek text of the RV. As I understand the situation, Palmer followed WH's theory on texts. Which still makes the RV the first widely distributed non-TR New Testament in English.

Yes, the ASV had evangelical translators. It was even fairly broadly used in many evangelical\fundamentalist studies. However, unlike the NASB, it wasn't promoted as the greatest thing since sliced bread and homogenized peanut butter.

 

[robycop3]

I still believe the KJVO myth came into the Fundamantalist movement in the 1970s, shortly after the NASV was released in 1971, & the NIV's NT was first released in 1973.

The release of the NASV's NT in the mid-1960s mighta inspired Dr. D. O. Fuller to write Which Bible? Let us not forget the DISHONESTY behind that book, as he copied from both 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, and "J. J. Ray's" 1955 book, God Wrote Only One Bible, which copied heavily from Wilkinson, without acknowledging him in the slightest. Fuller not only copied some from both; he was careful not to mention Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION.

As a fundie who's sola scriptura, I find it hard to believe that some other fundies would adopt a man-made false doctrine such as KJVO, which doesn't have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

Yes, I believe the 1970s were when the KJVO virus significantly invaded Fundamentalism, even though it's been around to some small degree in verious other denoms ever since the RV was first released.