When Did KJVO come Into Church?

[Dr. Bob]

I'm LVO (Latin Vulgate Only). It was the ONLY translation in the vernacular for 1000 years. It was the one used in all the preaching, revivals, souls saved . . .

Okay. To the op -

The "only" sect began as part of the Adventist Church. Of course, the Adventists have since repudiated that position as "too cultish" (word used because it was the phrase THEY used).

Adventists still use, in many churches, the KJV1769 oxford revision. Our local one does I know for a fact. But disavowed the "only" position and now, like many on the BB, simply prefer it for one reason or another.

Sadly, though the Adventists thought the KJVonly position "too cultish", it was picked up by a few Baptists!! Can you imagine Baptists holding an Adventist position, elevating an Anglican made/slanted translation?? Ironic.

 

[go2church]

I have always been confused by the KJV only business. I have seen it up close in the church I grew up in, the college I attended for a while and with various folks over the years. It just never made any sense to me. I for one don't care for the KJV, but if someone wants to use an antiquated less reliable translation, they are welcome to it. There are far better translations out there now then the KJV and have been for a while.

 

[Amy.G]

Can you imagine Baptists holding an Adventist position, elevating an Anglican made/slanted translation?? Ironic.

Dr. Bob, why are you always saying the KJV is an "Anglican" translation when in reality the translators included both Anglican and Puritans?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Dr. Bob, why are you always saying the KJV is an "Anglican" translation when in reality the translators included both Anglican and Puritans?

Of course Dr. Bob is capable of answering for himself, but I can state some relevent well-attested historical facts --

The 'Puritans' were a sub-group of Anglicans that wanted to 'purify' the Anglican church of some Catholic tendancies.

The Puritans were not a recognized denomination, therefore all the translators of the AV were Anglicans; only a small minority of the translators actually had Puritan leanings.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I for one don't care for the KJV, but if someone wants to use an antiquated less reliable translation, they are welcome to it. There are far better translations out there now then the KJV and have been for a while.

Antiquated language? Possibly.

But what are the grounds for saying that the KJV is 'less reliable?' Does that mean that for four hundred years God's people in the English speaking world have had to deal with a Bible that they have not been able to really rely upon?

 

[Rippon]

Antiquated language? Possibly.

No,most certainly. It is no mere possibility.

But what are the grounds for saying that the KJV is 'less reliable?'

It is far less accurate than many modern versions. Reliability also implies understandability. With its antiquarian wording it has distanced itself from being as trustworthy as many modern versions.

Also,it has added many passages to the Word of God --to begin with.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Also,it has added many passages to the Word of God --to begin with.

These kind of charges are unhelpful, no matter which side they come from.

Unless you have the original manuscripts to hand you don't know whether passages are added or taken away.

 

[Jim1999]

I am no KJVOnlyist, but I am really tired of those who do nothing but kick at the KJV of scripture. A lot of you wouldn't even be around to-day if it weren't for those who held the KJV close to their hearts whilst liberal modernism was taking over the universities and the populations. It was the KJV that formed our theology, source of our sermons, and the Bible we carried to church every Sunday.

Notice, I said helped form our theology. Theological formations from such scholars as Hodge, Strong and many others. Stalwart believers in scripture and truth and unfailing theologies that have survived the many different translations.

I don't understand what some people to-day are saying as well as I understand the KJV.

Understand, I am not saying the thee isn't a place for other translations, but what I am saying is, don't knock the Bible which has served the church for so many years, and delivered the gospel to so many souls over time.

Anyone want to challenge my theology using any of the translations? I can defend my theology biblically, and it essentially comes from the KJV.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[go2church]

What Rippon said

This is what makes no sense to me. The current evidence is clear and in many cases overwhelming that the manuscripts had some scribal additions that were not original yet as soon as this is pointed out..."Well we don't have the originals, so we can't really know".

Yes, we do know, the KJV followed inferior manuscripts and therefore has some passages not original. This makes it less accurate then more modern translations. Like since the 1880's at least

How about the first verse, "heaven" is clearly plural should be "heavens" yet translated singular, didn't get it correct right from jump street.

This is not to say modern translations are perfect, far from it. They are however more accurate then the KJV.

 

[go2church]

I am no KJVOnlyist, but I am really tired of those who do nothing but kick at the KJV of scripture. A lot of you wouldn't even be around to-day if it weren't for those who held the KJV close to their hearts whilst liberal modernism was taking over the universities and the populations. It was the KJV that formed our theology, source of our sermons, and the Bible we carried to church every Sunday.

Notice, I said helped form our theology. Theological formations from such scholars as Hodge, Strong and many others. Stalwart believers in scripture and truth and unfailing theologies that have survived the many different translations.

I don't understand what some people to-day are saying as well as I understand the KJV.

Understand, I am not saying the thee isn't a place for other translations, but what I am saying is, don't knock the Bible which has served the church for so many years, and delivered the gospel to so many souls over time.

Anyone want to challenge my theology using any of the translations? I can defend my theology biblically, and it essentially comes from the KJV.

Cheers,

Jim

I am of the mind that had the KJV not been the bible of choice, somehow, someway or another, believers would have found a way to still be faithful, form solid biblical theology and share the Gospel. None of these are dependent on the KJV, now or then.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes, we do know, the KJV followed inferior manuscripts...

How do you know that apart from educated guesswork? If you don't have the original manuscripts you can't compare to see which are superior and which are inferior.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am of the mind that had the KJV not been the bible of choice, somehow, someway or another, believers would have found a way to still be faithful, form solid biblical theology and share the Gospel. None of these are dependent on the KJV, now or then.

I would tend to agree. True believers have always been able to find the truth, even without possessing complete or "perfect" copies of the Scriptures- but that is another thread and I don't want JOJ mad at me- :laugh:.

 

[Mexdeaf]

How do you know that apart from educated guesswork? If you don't have the original manuscripts you can't compare to see which are superior and which are inferior.

I like that term- "educated guesswork". Could be applied to a lot of what we argue so heatedly about here.

 

[JesusFan]

How do you know that apart from educated guesswork? If you don't have the original manuscripts you can't compare to see which are superior and which are inferior.

Think that it is a common consensus from a majority of textual "critics/experts/scholars" that the CT would be preferred ones to base a translation upon..

Would say that IF one used the MT would be about the same as using the CT, but that the TR would be seen as inferior to either of them!

Also, would say that taking out which texts would be best to use, the vast amount of additional information that we have since the time of 1611, especially in regards to the languages/history/cultures etc of the biblical times would mean that we have much better tools available to translate our versions with/from!

IF staying with TR texts, would say the NKJV superior to old one, as they could use updated tools and knowledge!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I like that term- "educated guesswork". Could be applied to a lot of what we argue so heatedly about here.

ah-yup ......

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Think that it is a common consensus from a majority of textual "critics/experts/scholars" that the CT would be preferred ones to base a translation upon..

But these, no matter how smart they are, are guessing and a 'majority' does not always mean 'right.'

IF staying with TR texts, would say the NKJV superior to old one, as they could use updated tools and knowledge!

Which, despite my deep love for the KJV, I use the NKJV 90% of the time

 

[robycop3]

While the KJV was, and remains,an excellent English translation, its reputation is sometimes sullied by the absolutely-ridiculous claims made about it by certain KJVOs. While I don't believe anyone is gonna accuse me of being KJVO, the KJV is the best version for me to memorize and recite verses from, as it's not in my everyday language, and therefore stands out more in my memory.

As for when KJVO came into churches, it depended upon when news of newer versions reached them. Soon as some folks heard of newer English versions, they immediately went ballistic defending the KJV. This could be anywhere from 1901 when the ASV was published, onward, but not really growing until the NIV was published. (Seems the NIV is the version KJVOs hate the most. The RV of 1881 didn't have much impact in the USA.)

Seems certain authors saw a cash cow to milk with KJVO, and published books based largely upon Dr. Wilkinson's book, the truth of his material be dipped. Lots of that began in the early 1970s and burgeoned in the 1980s as Ruckman's pen became busier, and into the 1990s as Riplinger decided she wanted to squeeze a teat of that cash cow.

Nowadays, with tools such as these PCs, people on their own are discovering the truth-or, rather, the UNTRUTH-of KJVO.

 

[JesusFan]

But these, no matter how smart they are, are guessing and a 'majority' does not always mean 'right.'

You are correct, just was stating that a vast majority of scholars in this area would hold to that....

Also would see that little difference between the MT/CT texts, big difference between both of them and the TR!

Which, despite my deep love for the KJV, I use the NKJV 90% of the time :-)[/QUOTE]

Would say that would among the best miodern versions to use for study purposes!

 

[Amy.G]

It is far less accurate than many modern versions. Reliability also implies understandability. With its antiquarian wording it has distanced itself from being as trustworthy as many modern versions.

Also,it has added many passages to the Word of God --to begin with.

I don't want to start a Cal vs Arm debate, but it just amazes me the number of Calvinists on this board who scream about God's sovereignty and yet claim that the KJV in inferior to other versions, comes from inferior texts, and adds words to the text (which is strictly forbidden by God) and somehow seem to ignore that in God's sovereignty He made the KJV to be the number one version used for 400 years.

No, it was not accidental that the KJV was used by God in a mighty way and you critics would do well to remember that and stop criticizing God's word.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I don't want to start a Cal vs Arm debate, but it just amazes me the number of Calvinists on this board who scream about God's sovereignty and yet claim that the KJV in inferior to other versions, comes from inferior texts, and adds words to the text (which is strictly forbidden by God) and somehow seem to ignore that in God's sovereignty He made the KJV to be the number one version used for 400 years.

No, it was not accidental that the KJV was used by God in a mighty way and you critics would do well to remember that and stop criticizing God's word.

And before that He allowed the Vulgate to be number one for 1,000 years or so, and as (IF) time goes on it might well be the NIV or the ESV for the next 400 years...

The "My Bible is more blessed than your Bible" argument doesn't hold water, either.