When did statements on Bible versions first begin to appear in 'Statements of Faith'?

[Rippon]

I don't agree at all, I believe the RT is the preserved word of God, and so do hundreds of IFB churches, this is what they proclaim in their statement of faith.

So when the KJV deviates from the RT do you then not accept those particular renderings in the former?

 

[robycop3]

Winman:Well, those like myself who believe only the KJB is the preserved word of God in English, we believe we have many scriptures to support this view, and I think everyone here is very familiar with these particular verses. There are dozens.

Actually, there are NONE. But if ya believe there are, please post them in a new thread so I can prove ya wrong. Don't wanna get THIS thread off-topic.

I first saw such SOFs on church bulletin boards, etc. in the early 1980s as the KJVO myth was becoming more of a topic of discussion here-n-there. I didn't pay much attention to it then as I would now if I were seeking a new church home, so I dunno if there were any such SOFs in the 1970s or earlier, at least wherever I had been. And I doubt if too many churches gave any thought to the subject until the combo of modern-language Bibles and Dr. Wilkinson's book hit their neurons.

 

[Winman]

So when the KJV deviates from the RT do you then not accept those particular renderings in the former?

I can't answer, it would be off topic. If you and robycop want me to answer these questions, please start another thread.

On topic, I think Jerome wins the gold ring! :thumbs:

 

[Mexdeaf]

On topic, I think Jerome wins the gold ring! :thumbs:

Baptist Orthodox Creed (1678): by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the old and new testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue.

You could still publish that today in reference to any of our good English translations. So, no that is not when it started.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I first saw such SOFs on church bulletin boards, etc. in the early 1980s as the KJVO myth was becoming more of a topic of discussion here-n-there. I didn't pay much attention to it then as I would now if I were seeking a new church home, so I dunno if there were any such SOFs in the 1970s or earlier, at least wherever I had been. And I doubt if too many churches gave any thought to the subject until the combo of modern-language Bibles and Dr. Wilkinson's book hit their neurons.

That seems to be the common era of such statements becoming vogue- late 70's to early 80's.

 

[Winman]

You could still publish that today in reference to any of our good English translations. So, no that is not when it started.

No, you could not say that today. They were speaking of the English translation in 1678.

Baptist Orthodox Creed (1678): by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the old and new testament, as they are now translated into our English mother-tongue.

Sure, a church could post this creed today, but to say it would mean the same thing as the original creed would be totally dishonest and misleading unless the reader was informed the original creed was written in 1678. Then the reader would understand the original creed pertained to the Received Text.

 

[TCassidy]

That seems to be the common era of such statements becoming vogue- late 70's to early 80's.

Long before. KJVOism had its beginnings in 1865 with the publication of the new American version by the Sunday School board, and gained strength in 1881 with the publication of the English Revised Version. It reached fever pitch in 1901 with the publication of the American Standard Version.

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 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."

In Riley's day a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114).

The constant references to Wilkinson as the father of KJVOism is an example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well in an attempt to link KJVOism with the 7th Day Adventist cult. However, this is our own Baptist home-grown heresy and we can't pawn it off on anyone else.

We Baptists broke it and we Baptists will have to fix it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Long before. KJVOism had its beginnings in 1865 with the publication of the new American version by the Sunday School board, and gained strength in 1881 with the publication of the English Revised Version. It reached fever pitch in 1901 with the publication of the American Standard Version.

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 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."

In Riley's day a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114).

The constant references to Wilkinson as the father of KJVOism is an example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well in an attempt to link KJVOism with the 7th Day Adventist cult. However, this is our own Baptist home-grown heresy and we can't pawn it off on anyone else.

We Baptists broke it and we Baptists will have to fix it.

Not arguing with you here Doc Cassidy, but my point of contention and question is when such became a point of doctrine listed in a Statement of Faith of a Baptist Church. Are you saying that such was the case as far back as 1865? I can understand a preacher (or a group of them) believing in KJVO that far back but did they actually put it in the SOF of their churches?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Just wanted to say, "Hi Franklin! Nice to see you around these parts again."

Thank you, friend. I hope you will be rewarded for your kind words.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't agree at all, I believe the RT is the preserved word of God, ...

I recognize your desire to identify the preserved written word of God. Briefly, what convinces you that a RT is a divine work?

 

[TCassidy]

Not arguing with you here Doc Cassidy, but my point of contention and question is when such became a point of doctrine listed in a Statement of Faith of a Baptist Church. Are you saying that such was the case as far back as 1865? I can understand a preacher (or a group of them) believing in KJVO that far back but did they actually put it in the SOF of their churches?

None of us has any way of knowing. There is no archive of church statements of faith that preserve each and every artical of faith for each and every church in the country. But the teaching can certainly be traced back to the latter half of the 1800s.

 

[TomVols]

TCassidy, how would you characterize the number of men in the mid to late 1800s who were KJVO? Large? Small?

I know around here the clincher seemed to be when the BSSB started printing the RSV along with the KJV in SS literature. Folks threw a fit. Some folks still haven't gotten over it.

 

[rsr]

Long before. KJVOism had its beginnings in 1865 with the publication of the new American version by the Sunday School board, and gained strength in 1881 with the publication of the English Revised Version. It reached fever pitch in 1901 with the publication of the American Standard Version.

The 1865 date is convenient because the revised American Bible Union did take some controversial steps, such as putting the Pericope Adulterae in brackets. Still, it was far from a critical text.

You can back it up 15 years to 1850 when the American and Foreign Bible Society (formed when Baptists, in particular, bolted the American Bible Society because of the Baptists' insistence on translating baptizo)) began undertaking a new translation that would carry that trend into English.

According to the New York Recorder account of the May 1850 session of the society (as quoted in Alexander Campbell's Millennial Harbinger, Series 3, Vol. 7) Rev. Turnbull (whom I believe to be Robert Turnbull, pastor of First, Hartford, Conn.) said:

He must confess that his reverence for the Bible had been greatly wounded by the language which had been used in regard to the imperfections of the present version. He did not like to hear it said that it contained 20,000 errors. Dr. Blaney had said the same thing of the Greek original from which the translation was made, but upon examination they proved of a very insignificant character. He hoped that these trivial imperfections, whether in a Greek manuscript or in the English version, would not be forced into a magnitude which did not belong to them.

Rev. Dr. Ide (whom I've identified as George Ide, pastor of First, Philadelphia) offered that:

We did not need a revised version—we ought not to attempt to make one—and we could not accomplish it if we did try it. Much was said in reference to the imperfections of the authorized English version. Nothing which comes through human hands can be perfect; but after examination it will be found that, for the purpose for which it was designed, for the masses, for the fireside, for the highways and by-ways of ordinary life, a more appropriate, idiomatic, and expressive version, could not be produced. It was superior to the version of Luther himself. We could not have a version of scripture which, in all particulars, would be so well adapted to the masses—to the homes of our land. Some words are obsolete—antiquated; but the smallest scholar in our Sabbath schools can detect the intended meaning of the writers.

and

We have learned this English Bible at our mother's knee. Ought we to shake the confidence of the people? Can you put any stop to the course of the Infidel, if you thus shake the confidence of the community in the Bible? Whatever differences there may be between the various denominations of Christians, while we have that good old English Bible, there is a broad golden band that unites us all together—that still makes us one family and household of faith. If we have a new Bible, this band will be sundered. We shall be the Ishmaelites of Christendom. Even if we voted for a new version, it would be impossible to carry it into effect. You may appoint a congress of theologians; but think you that the associations of two hundred and forty years can thus be erased. Think you that Christians who have learned to lisp their Saviour's name from this book, can thrust it aside and take up with a new version ' Dear old English Bible! we will not forsake thee. Thou may'st be slandered, charged with "blasphemy," but we will not part with thee; and when we lay our heads on our last bed of sickness, this slandered, blessed book, shall be our pillow, and in its own glorious words we will breathe out our last prayer, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"

Spencer Cone, principal editor of the new version, made the mistake of using an unfortunate illustration:

A pious Brahmin once desired to offer a sacrifice to God, and looked about him for a fine sheep. Three rogues determined to cheat him. They procured an old, blind and lame dog, and having put him into a sack, one of them contrived to waylay the pious man, with the dog for sale. Accordingly the lame and blind old dog was offered to the Brahmin. On seeing the animal the Brahmin said, "Friend, either thou or I must be blind, for this is no sheep. It is nothing but a dog, nnd a very poor one, too." But the fellow insisted that it was a sheep; and presently one of the conspirators came up and says to his coadjutor, "What will you take for that very fine sheep!"

"You must be drunk, to call this a sheep," said the Brahmin. They then agreed, however, to leave the decision of the question to the first man who made his appearance. Presently the third rogue came along, and to him the question was put, " What animal is this!" He immediately replied, "It is a sheep, and a very fine sheep, too." Then the Brahmin bought the dog and offered it in sacrifice to his god, who, as the story reads, was so wroth that he inflicted a grievous disease upon the Brahmin.

Now, there is no Baptist minister who has not reiterated again and again that this translation of King James is a lame dog; and yet we are asked to endorse it for all time to come, and place it side by side with the inspired original.

Which prompted Ide to observe that:

Shall this golden band be compared to the Papacy that encountered Luther, and sought to turn back his steps! Shall the English Bible, which all Protestant Christians refer, and to which they do reverence, be compared to the Papacy! Has it come to this, that a beardless youth shall stand up, in such an assembly as this, and compare that Bible to a blind and lame dog, which ministers of the gospel offer as a sacrifice!

And so it went; the society voted against authorizing the translation, which prompted Cone and others to form the new American Bible Union, which did publish revised editions of the New Testament. The American Bible Union eventually dissolved and handed over its version to the American Baptist Publication Society, which published another revision of the New Testament in 1891 and an entire Bible in 1912. Neither made much of an impression, having been overtaken by the ERV and the ASV.

 

[rsr]

I also would refer you to An Apology for the Common English Bible published in 1857 by Arthur C. Coxe, who railed against even the changes in the American Bible Society's new edition, including punctuation and chapter headings. (Coxe was, at the time, rector of Grace Anglican Church in Baltimore and later became bishop in New York).

Can it be necessary to argue that no one can inflict a graver wound on the unity of the race, and on all the sacred interests which depend on that unity, under God, than by tampering with the English Bible? By the acclamation of the universe, it is the most faultless version of the Scriptures that ever existed in any tongue. To complain of its trifling blemishes, is to complain of the sun for its spots. Whatever may be its faults, they are less evil, in every way, than would be the evils sure to arise from any attempt to eradicate them; and where there is so much of wheat, the few tares may be allowed to stand till the end of the world. Two centuries, complete, have identified even its slightest peculiarities with the whole literature, poetry, prose, and science, as well as with the entire thought and theology of those ages, and the time, to all appearance, is forever past, when any alteration can be made in it, without a shock to a thousand holy things, and to the pious sensibilities of millions.

The care with which the Hebrews guarded every jot and tittle of their Scriptures was never reproved by our Saviour. It is our duty and interest to imitate them in the jealousy with which God's Holy Word is kept in our own language. Even the antiquated words of the English Bible will never become obsolete, while they are preserved in the amber of its purity; and there they have a precious beauty and propriety which they would lack elsewhere. The language lives there in its strength, as in a citadel, and knows no damage, while it keeps that house like a strong man armed. He who would rub off those graceful marks of age which adorn our version, vulgarizes and debases that venerable dignity with which the first ideas of religion came to the youthful mind and heart from the old and hoary Bible. But it is a graver thought, that no individual, and no set of individuals, can leave even a mark upon the Bible, in these days, without disfiguring and injuring it, in the estimation of the great majority of readers.

 

[robycop3]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that some church in 1612 had "KJVO" in its statement of faith, or "Geneva Bible Only". And while i believe there was some sorta KJVO around in the 1600s, I don't believe it became the plague it now is until at least the late 1960s when J. J. Ray's book, God wrote only One Bible(1955) gained some readership, and Ruckman's stuff began to appear.
But I don't believe Ruckman was the catalyst who started the current plague. Instead, he is a product of it, who saw a cash cow born, & decided to milk it. I don't believe there was any one human catalyst. When several modern versions were published within a short time of each other, mainly the NIV, NKJV, and NASV, more than one pastor who'd been raised on the KJV simply didn't wanna change versions, and made the mistake of proclaiming the KJV as the only valid English BV. These preachers influenced at least some of their audiences, and it didn't take long for some churches to add KJVO to their statements of faith.
Again, I gave it next-to-no thought until it was thrown in my face. That's when I went to work to discover the TRUTH about KJVO, which is, there's actually NO TRUTH in it.
I doubt if there were many churches who posted a statement of faith before the early 1970s included the name of any Bible version in it. Can we safely assume that it didn't become a serious problem until after the NIV's NT was first published in 1973. I believe the NIV was the catalyst that made many folx aware of valid modern versions and also boosted the sales of the NASV of 1971 as well as prompted several churches to add KJVO to their statements of faith.

 

[gb93433]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that some church in 1612 had "KJVO" in its statement of faith, or "Geneva Bible Only". And while i believe there was some sorta KJVO around in the 1600s, I don't believe it became the plague it now is until at least the late 1960s when J. J. Ray's book, God wrote only One Bible(1955) gained some readership, and Ruckman's stuff began to appear.

Some of that kind of literature came out of a church that I once lived near. The problem is that they are not evangelical at all. I do not know of one person who has ever talked with any of the people who go to that church and who became a Christian through any of them. I can remember when they met in a very small building as thought they were an Amish congregation and have grown little since. However the non-Christians know about them in town in a negative way.

The church had to change when Isaac Watts came along too. Imagine a church today without any of what we call hymns? When Isaac Watts wrote and sang contemporary music it was viewed as modern and many opposed it just as we have the naysayers today. For about 1000 years the church did not have singing and then when it did they sang the Psalms. Then along came Isaac Watts!

 

[TCassidy]

TCassidy, how would you characterize the number of men in the mid to late 1800s who were KJVO? Large? Small?

I know around here the clincher seemed to be when the BSSB started printing the RSV along with the KJV in SS literature. Folks threw a fit. Some folks still haven't gotten over it.

I think you would have to look at the issue regionally. I know the Minnesota Baptist Association split back in around 1915 over the KJV issue. That is what Riley was discussing, in passing, in his book "Menace of Modernism."

The Baptist Sunday School Board precipitated another split in around 1860 over the same issue but that was mostly in the south when they published the new American version based on the Greek texts of Griesbach and Lachmann, forerunners to Westcott and Hort. (In fact, the WH text of 1881 was an edited text based on those published by of Griesbach and Lachmann.)

I think, for the most part, the disruptions due to KJVO influence were limited to those breaking away from the old Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions. There seems to be very little evidence of major disruptions within the conventions themselves (although that has changed in the relatively recent past, especially in the SBC, where KJVOism has reared its ugly head - and even in the ABC where a friend of mine pastors a KJVO ABC church - go figure!).

 

[TCassidy]

The 1865 date is convenient because the revised American Bible Union did take some controversial steps, such as putting the Pericope Adulterae in brackets. Still, it was far from a critical text.

You can back it up 15 years to 1850 when the American and Foreign Bible Society (formed when Baptists, in particular, bolted the American Bible Society because of the Baptists' insistence on translating baptizo)) began undertaking a new translation that would carry that trend into English.

I have a first edition New Testament of the American version (as opposed to the English version) which translates "baptizo" as "immerse" (much to the chagrin of Baptists, I am sure). The Greek textual basis was the Greek texts of Griesbach and Lachmann, as it predated Westcott and Hort by 31 years.

 

[gb93433]

I have a first edition New Testament of the American version (as opposed to the English version) which translates "baptizo" as "immerse" (much to the chagrin of Baptists, I am sure). The Greek textual basis was the Greek texts of Griesbach and Lachmann, as it predated Westcott and Hort by 31 years.

What is its title? Many books can be downloaded at http://www.archive.org/

 

[rsr]

I have a first edition New Testament of the American version (as opposed to the English version) which translates "baptizo" as "immerse" (much to the chagrin of Baptists, I am sure).

The edition you are referring to was by Spencer Cone (a Baptist) and was a provisional edition for the consideration of the American and Foreign Bible Society. While the AFBS was largely controlled by the Baptists, and it had translated, not transliterated, baptizo in its foreign publications, it had continued to insist "that in the distribution of the Scriptures in the English language, the commonly received version shall be used until otherwise directed by the society."

In 1850 Cone and other officers offered the new immersionist edition to the AFBS, which finally decided "That it is not the province and duty of the American and Foreign Bible Society to attempt, on their own part, or procure from others, a revision of the commonly received English version of the Scriptures."

This led Cone (who had been re-elected president of the AFBS) to resign, and he and other Baptists (and Restorationists, who had similar views on the mode of baptism) formed the American Bible Union, which published its own New Testaments in the 1860s.

Perhaps it would have been better to say that the Greek text of the later ABU NT was proto-critical; it adopted some corrections of the RT but certainly not to the extent that would become common in later years.