When Did the KJVO Movement Start?

[prophet]

"Prophet" wrote on the "1 John 5:7,8" thread:

In defense of this he claimed that Armitage said that the American Bible Society had as a rule that translations must be made from the KJV, but for the life of me I can find no such rule in the chapter prophet pointed me to: "Bible Translation and Bible Societies," in Arimitage's book, A History of the Baptists.

On the other thread, in order to find evidence in the chapter, prophet instructed me:

I did a search of an MS Word version of the book, but found no such reference at all. Come on, prophet, help me out here: where is the quote that proves that the Bible society required translations to be made from the KJV?

Among missionary translations up to 1900 I've read about, the following were made from the original languages: all of Carey's translations into Indian languages, Morrison's into Chinese, Judson's into Burmese, those of Gutzlaff into Thai & Chinese & Japanese, Martyn into Persian, etc. At one time I had read that the Japanese Motoyaku ("Original Translation") was from the KJV, but I no longer believe that. So I don't know of a single missionary translation in the 19th century made from the KJV.

If there was a 19th century KJVO movement, what missionary translation was done from the KJV? Prophet? I'm waiting.

I put the page number on the other thread, after you went to bed.
Check it out.

 

[robycop3]

Ever read B.G.Wilkinson's book?

Yes, & it might as well have been written by Oscar meyer or Jimmy dean, as it's quite fulla baloney.

 

[robycop3]

While I appreciate the informative and thoughtful posts so far, none of them address the OP, which is to discuss the KJVO "movement," not simply whether people had a similar belief before 1970, in particular in the 19th century.

Note the following definition of a movement: "A series of actions, plans, etc., tending toward some end: the temperance movement; also, organizations, persons, etc., of a particular tendency,: the right-wing movement" (The Standard College Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls, in The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1975, p. 887).

For a KJVO movement to exist then, it should have leaders, organizations, publications and recruitment efforts. Is there any evidence of this before 1970?

Only in the boox by Ray and Fuller, mentioned above, with Ruckman's coming in thru the doggie door in 1964. As newer BVs proliferated, so did the number of "KJVO" authors, and the amount of KJVO writings, spread by the power of modern media. (Remember who is "prince of the air".)

It's only in the last 30-or-so years we've seen church shingles or logos bearing the words "King James Bible Only" or similar, or heard preachers devoting whole sermons to KJVO.

There's no 'official' KJVO org that I know of, mainly, I believe, because KJVOs must constantly be inventing new excuses to attempt to justify their belief in a NON-SCRIPTURAL doctrine of worship, as those excuses get shot down as fast as they're made.

 

[John of Japan]

Seems I read somewhere that some of the KJVO business really got rolling, grew out the criticism of the publication of the RSV New Testament in 1946 and Old Testament in 1952 and the whole kerfuffle over Isaiah 7:14.

Can you trace the modern movement to this? I can't. The fundamentalist authors at that time did not become KJVO, and even opposed the movement at its inception, men like John R. Rice, Bob Sumner, Stewart Custer and others.

 

[John of Japan]

Only in the boox by Ray and Fuller, mentioned above, with Ruckman's coming in thru the doggie door in 1964. As newer BVs proliferated, so did the number of "KJVO" authors, and the amount of KJVO writings, spread by the power of modern media. (Remember who is "prince of the air".)

What Ruckman book came out in 1964? I have his Manuscript Evidence, but that is copyrighted 1970.

Before then you have (as I believe you pointed out) the cultist Wilkerson, J. J. Ray, Edward Hills (1967) and so forth, but none of these books spawned a movement as far as I can tell.

It's only in the last 30-or-so years we've seen church shingles or logos bearing the words "King James Bible Only" or similar, or heard preachers devoting whole sermons to KJVO.

Exactly! Those sermons are efforts at recruitment, which in my book is what a movement does. I've never heard of a sermon on the subject before the 1970s at the earliest.

There's no 'official' KJVO org that I know of, mainly, I believe, because KJVOs must constantly be inventing new excuses to attempt to justify their belief in a NON-SCRIPTURAL doctrine of worship, as those excuses get shot down as fast as they're made.

There doesn't have to be an umbrella organization for it to be a movement. The temperance movement had a number of organizations in it, and the "right wing" movement has many organizations connected with it.

The KJVO movement has various organizations connected with it pushing the agenda, and there are now colleges and churches that have it on their signs and in their doctrinal statements as you've pointed out. To the best of my knowledge these things never existed in the 19th century or most of the 20th, ergo there was no KJVO movement prior to 1970 or so.

 

[John of Japan]

I put the page number on the other thread, after you went to bed.
Check it out.

Come on man, why is it so hard for you to actually type in the quote? It can't be more than a sentence or two, right? I'll try again to find it, but under protest. How can I call this a debate when I have to do my opponent's work for him?

 

[John of Japan]

I put the page number on the other thread, after you went to bed.
Check it out.

I found nothing about what you are saying on p. 901. The "untenable position" on p. 895 is as follows:

In contrast with this, the Bible Society said: ‘‘You are to take the common English version and conform your version to the principle on which it was made, so that all denominations" represented in this Society can use it in their schools and communities." A version, and that quite imperfect, was to be made the standard by which all versions should be made, and the voice of all the denominations in the Society was to be consulted instead of the mind of the Holy Spirit.

Is this where you think translators are instructed to translate from the KJV? I thought it might be but I waited for you to actually say so.

Sorry, you misinterpret what the statement is saying. "Principle" does not mean "source language." I myself translate the NT according to the principles the KJV was done on: from the Greek, from the TR, literally, transferring the syntax and semantics from the original language to the target language as I can. But that does not mean I translate from the KJV.

That 19th century English is a killer if you haven't read books from then enough to understand it. :smilewinkgrin:

So I'll ask again: what missionary translation before the 20th century was done with the KJV as the source document?

 

[preachinjesus]

Well I think you've got a pretty solid pattern with Bob Jones Sr, Norris, and others, especially with the publication of The Fundamentals. Many modernist proponents advocated other translations, more modern ones at the time, and these guys all preached against them and their translations. I'm in the midst of a busy season and don't plan on taking time to work this out with research. So my observation is just that, an observation.

The KJVOnlyism probably didn't culminate into KJVO movement until after WW2 imho.

 

[go2church]

Found this article from 2012

http://dbts.edu/blog/beginning-of-kjv-only-movement/

 

[John of Japan]

Ever read B.G.Wilkinson's book?

Sure, it's in Fuller's Which Bible en toto, and I read it probably back in the 1970's and have referred to it occasionally since.

 

[John of Japan]

Found this article from 2012

http://dbts.edu/blog/beginning-of-kjv-only-movement/

Bill Combs is wrong in this article, because Burgon was not KJVO, and was not even TR-only. He wrote about textual criticism, not translation per se.

 

[prophet]

Yes, & it might as well have been written by Oscar meyer or Jimmy dean, as it's quite fulla baloney.

What's your point?

 

[prophet]

I found nothing about what you are saying on p. 901. The "untenable position" on p. 895 is as follows:

Is this where you think translators are instructed to translate from the KJV? I thought it might be but I waited for you to actually say so.

Sorry, you misinterpret what the statement is saying. "Principle" does not mean "source language." I myself translate the NT according to the principles the KJV was done on: from the Greek, from the TR, literally, transferring the syntax and semantics from the original language to the target language as I can. But that does not mean I translate from the KJV.

That 19th century English is a killer if you haven't read books from then enough to understand it. :smilewinkgrin:

So I'll ask again: what missionary translation before the 20th century was done with the KJV as the source document?

Congrats. Now tell me what the untenable position is, cuz that's what I asked.

Seems to me, that you hold it.

 

[Rippon]

Well I think you've got a pretty solid pattern with Bob Jones Sr, Norris, and others, especially with the publication of The Fundamentals. Many modernist proponents advocated other translations, more modern ones at the time, and these guys all preached against them and their translations.

The authors of The Fundamentals were not of the KJVO mentality. Many quoted from the KJV favorably as well as the REV and 1901 ASV.

When you use the term "modernist" as it was used back then it means theological liberal these days. There were conservative Bible believing men who used other versions primarily or in tandem with the KJV in the first 20 years of the 20th century for instance.

 

[John of Japan]

Congrats. Now tell me what the untenable position is, cuz that's what I asked.

Seems to me, that you hold it.

Again you are not paying attention, because I quoted it in post #27. And no, I do not hold the "untenable position," you do--assuming you believe as you appear to that one version should be "made the standard by which all versions should be made."

And again I'll ask: what missionary translation in the 19th century was done from the KJV?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally Posted by prophet
Look for the quote, about translators who felt that the kjv descended from Heaven.

I think "prophet" may be confused. The only reference I can find to the statement is found in Dr. George W. Dollar's book "History of Fundamentalism in America" where he stats 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).

 

[robycop3]

What's your point?

My point is that book contains more than one goof, but it's the "foundation stone" of the current KJVO myth, with many KJVOs still repeating that book's errors almost as if they're "gospel", without bothering to check out their VERACITY. Case in point is the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie".

Virtually all KJVO literature that followed used material from that one book.

 

[prophet]

My point is that book contains more than one goof, but it's the "foundation stone" of the current KJVO myth, with many KJVOs still repeating that book's errors almost as if they're "gospel", without bothering to check out their VERACITY. Case in point is the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie".

Virtually all KJVO literature that followed used material from that one book.

Thanks, but I was just pointing out that book as an earlier date than 1970.

 

[robycop3]

What Ruckman book came out in 1964? I have his Manuscript Evidence, but that is copyrighted 1970.

I goofed. Indeed, Manuscript Evidence came out in 1970; it was Bible Babel that came out in 1964.

Before then you have (as I believe you pointed out) the cultist Wilkerson, J. J. Ray, Edward Hills (1967) and so forth, but none of these books spawned a movement as far as I can tell.

Hard to put an exact date in the beginning of the current KJVO MOVEMENT, but it was well under way by 1972. I'd never heard of Dr. Wilkinson's book before I was saved in 1979, but I DO remember from when I was a boy, hearing some people say we needed a new Bible in OUR English, and others saying such a Bible would be sacrilege.( I'm age 66.)

Exactly! Those sermons are efforts at recruitment, which in my book is what a movement does. I've never heard of a sermon on the subject before the 1970s at the earliest.

First sermon I ever heard pushing the KJVO myth was by the late Lester Roloff, on the radio, in the early 1980s. Dunno the date he first preached it, but, as he was killed in 1982, it was prolly from the mid-to-late 1970s.

There doesn't have to be an umbrella organization for it to be a movement. The temperance movement had a number of organizations in it, and the "right wing" movement has many organizations connected with it.

Many such orgs for the KJVO myth have arisen with the advent of the internet, & many of them have since dried up.

The KJVO movement has various organizations connected with it pushing the agenda, and there are now colleges and churches that have it on their signs and in their doctrinal statements as you've pointed out. To the best of my knowledge these things never existed in the 19th century or most of the 20th, ergo there was no KJVO movement prior to 1970 or so.

I'd say it's safe to date the APPROXIMATE beginning of the current KJVO movement to 1970, after the publication of Which Bible? I believe that book drew attention to Ray's book, and maybe to Bible Babel. But it's clear that Dr. Fuller didn't want Dr. Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION to be well-known. (Dr. W. had died in 1968.)

 

[robycop3]

Bill Combs is wrong in this article, because Burgon was not KJVO, and was not even TR-only. He wrote about textual criticism, not translation per se.

And the 1881 RV never had much popularity outside Great Britain, and certainly not in the USA. But it caused Westcott & Hort to become the main whipping boys of the current KJVO myth.

Now, y'all might wonder why I keep calling the KJVO doctrine a myth, or even a doctrine. The reasons are:

1.) A doctrine is anything taught, and KJVO IS taught.

2.) A myth is any INVENTED, FICTITIOUS story, idea, concept, or false collective belief, and KJVO fits this definition exactly. Thus, I refer to the KJVO MYTH.