When Did the KJVO Movement Start?

[TCassidy]

And the preceding paragraph:

"On the publication of these resolutions the greatest excitement spread through the denomination. Most of its journals were flooded with communications, pro and con, sermons were preached in a number of pulpits denouncing the movement, and public meetings were held in several cities to the same end, notable amongst them one at the Oliver Street Church, in New York, April 4th, 1850. This feeling was greatly increased by the two following facts : Mr. Carter, an intelligent layman, but neither a scholar nor an able thinker, having submitted a learned and elaborate paper as his minority report, which occupied an hour in the reading, and believing that it was inspired by an astute author in New York who had opposed the Society from the first, and was then a member of the Board of the American Bible Society, Dr. Cone and William H. Wyckoff, President and Secretary of the American and Foreign Bible Society, published a pamphlet over their names in defense of the action of the board, under the title, ' The Bible Translated.' The second fact arose from the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Script ures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings. Deacon William Colgate, the Treasurer, said that he approved of this suggestion, and that if Brethren Cone and Wyckoff would procure and issue such an edition as a personal enterprise, he, as a friend of revision, would personally pay the cost of the plates and printing. This was done, and in their preface tliey stated that by the aid of 'eminent scholars,' who had 'kindly co-operated and given their hearty approval to the proposed corrections,' they submitted their work, not for acceptance by the Society, but as a specimen of some changes which might be properly made, and that the plates would be presented to the Society if they were desired. This was sufficient to fan the fire to a huge flame ; much stormy and uncalled for severity was invoked, and a large attendance was called for at the annual meeting to 'rebuke this metropolitan power' and crush the movement forever."

It would seem that the opposition to the revision was not as opposed to it as they have been made to seem. It was there suggestion that a New Testament be published with the changes so they could see what they were and would then be able to agree or disagree with the changes.

 

[prophet]

And the preceding paragraph:

"On the publication of these resolutions the greatest excitement spread through the denomination. Most of its journals were flooded with communications, pro and con, sermons were preached in a number of pulpits denouncing the movement, and public meetings were held in several cities to the same end, notable amongst them one at the Oliver Street Church, in New York, April 4th, 1850. This feeling was greatly increased by the two following facts : Mr. Carter, an intelligent layman, but neither a scholar nor an able thinker, having submitted a learned and elaborate paper as his minority report, which occupied an hour in the reading, and believing that it was inspired by an astute author in New York who had opposed the Society from the first, and was then a member of the Board of the American Bible Society, Dr. Cone and William H. Wyckoff, President and Secretary of the American and Foreign Bible Society, published a pamphlet over their names in defense of the action of the board, under the title, ' The Bible Translated.' The second fact arose from the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Script ures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings. Deacon William Colgate, the Treasurer, said that he approved of this suggestion, and that if Brethren Cone and Wyckoff would procure and issue such an edition as a personal enterprise, he, as a friend of revision, would personally pay the cost of the plates and printing. This was done, and in their preface tliey stated that by the aid of 'eminent scholars,' who had 'kindly co-operated and given their hearty approval to the proposed corrections,' they submitted their work, not for acceptance by the Society, but as a specimen of some changes which might be properly made, and that the plates would be presented to the Society if they were desired. This was sufficient to fan the fire to a huge flame ; much stormy and uncalled for severity was invoked, and a large attendance was called for at the annual meeting to 'rebuke this metropolitan power' and crush the movement forever."

It would seem that the opposition to the revision was not as opposed to it as they have been made to seem. It was there suggestion that a New Testament be published with the changes so they could see what they were and would then be able to agree or disagree with the changes.

That wasn't "the opposition".

"in defense of the action of the board,"

Where did you learn to read?

"This was sufficient to fan the fire to a huge flame ; much stormy and uncalled for severity was invoked, and a large attendance was called for at the annual meeting to 'rebuke this metropolitan power' and crush the movement forever."

The decision to produce a NT was the "fan" that spread the flame.

This was after, of course, that the whole Bible had been revised, and was available.

So Carter's reaction, was to the complete revision, but the huge crowd at the annual convention was gathered against any revision at all...hence a KJVO movement, by definition.

 

[Yeshua1]

What was actually written was "Men of the highest ability took sides and published their views, some demanding revision at once, others admitting its necessity but hesitating as to what might be the proper method to procure it, and still others full of fiery denunciation of Cone, Wyckoff and Colgate, and their sympathizers; as if they were guilty of the basest crime for desiring as good a version for the English speaking people as the Baptists were giving to the East Indians. Many others also talked as much at random as if they feared that the book which they hinted had come down from heaven in about its present shape, printed and bound, was now to be taken from them by force."

A history of the Baptists: traced by their vital principles and practices from the time of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the year 1886 by Thomas Armitage - January 1, 1887, Bryan, Taylor - Publisher, page 901.

So the bottom line answer to the OP would be that while there always have been some who saw the Kjv as ONLY english version to use, most did not, as the geneva for a long time, then the RV/Asv were looked upon as being by many as superior revisions of the Kjv, and then the real "push" for KJVO came when modern versions started to hit, starting with Rsv, and then really taking off when Nov/Nasb hit and were successful?

 

[TCassidy]

Where did you learn to read?

Apparently someplace with much higher academic standards than where you (allegedly) learned.

Mr. Carter was against the revision. He made "the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Scriptures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings."

Context is everything. The Society dropped the resolution written 14 years earlier that when dealing with English speakers the Authorized Version was the official version of the Society.

They resolved to go forward with the revision.

The committee of five, appointed to discuss the matter and make recommendations to the Society as a whole, offered three recommendations. The first recommendation, to go forward with the revision, was the majority opinion, signed by 3 of the committee members. The other two could not agree between themselves (rather like the KJVOs of today) so each offered his own minority opinion.

"The third, from the pen of Warren Carter, Esq., was long and labored as an argument against altering the common version at all."

It was this same mister Carter who supported the publication of a New Testament showing the intended revisions.

No KJVO today would support such a position. QED

 

[TCassidy]

So the bottom line answer to the OP would be that while there always have been some who saw the Kjv as ONLY english version to use, most did not, as the geneva for a long time, then the RV/Asv were looked upon as being by many as superior revisions of the Kjv, and then the real "push" for KJVO came when modern versions started to hit, starting with Rsv, and then really taking off when Nov/Nasb hit and were successful?

Well, sort of. I don't see KJVOism as a "movement." It includes Pentecostals, Protestants, Baptists, and even a Mormon or two.

It is much too broad to have the consistency necessary for it to be a "movement." It is simply a broad spectrum of people who have a similar view of a single doctrine, quite often rejecting any other similarities.

It is rather like calling Fundamentalism a "movement" when the only thing the adherents have in common is the 5 fundamentals of the faith. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe the 5 fundamentals but they certainly would not, for the most part, consider themselves part of the same "movement."

I think it is always dangerous to pigeon-hole people based on a single characteristic. When we make that error we are much less likely to listen to them and give their position an honest hearing, but rather dismissing them because we think we already have them "pegged."

 

[prophet]

Apparently someplace with much higher academic standards than where you (allegedly) learned.

Mr. Carter was against the revision. He made "the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Scriptures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings."

Context is everything. The Society dropped the resolution written 14 years earlier that when dealing with English speakers the Authorized Version was the official version of the Society.

They resolved to go forward with the revision.

The committee of five, appointed to discuss the matter and make recommendations to the Society as a whole, offered three recommendations. The first recommendation, to go forward with the revision, was the majority opinion, signed by 3 of the committee members. The other two could not agree between themselves (rather like the KJVOs of today) so each offered his own minority opinion.

"The third, from the pen of Warren Carter, Esq., was long and labored as an argument against altering the common version at all."

It was this same mister Carter who supported the publication of a New Testament showing the intended revisions.

No KJVO today would support such a position. QED

Carter is not the KJVO, here.

I never said he was.

I can actually read, comprehensively.

1.Carter reacted to the first revision
2. The committee agreed to his terms, to put out a new testament with the intended changes denoted.
3.The annual convention was rocked with a backlash against the committee's decision....KJVO.

 

[John of Japan]

You think, huh?

I guess I have to type the actual quote in, for you scholarly types.

I have an android phone, I dont own a p.c.
Too bad you guys can't just do your own homework.

"Homework" would imply that you are my teacher, which is far from the truth. The truth is that you have made assertions, then not backed them up with quotes (basic in a debate) which you claim make your point.

And I don't give a hoot that you don't own a PC. If you can't stand the heat, if you don't have the equipment it takes to properly debate on the Internet, then simply stay out of the kitchen.

If you can read page 901, and don't see the KJVO backlash, at the 1842 revision of the King James, then you probably struggle with 19th century English.

What I saw was opposition people making sure the proposed revision would be true to the original Greek and suggesting a trial NT. This is hardly proof of a KJVO movement.

And since I grew up reading the KJV and have heard the KJV from birth and read it for about 55 years now (I'm 62) and preached from it for 44 years, and have read many books from the 19th century, I had no trouble reading Armitage in the slightest. In fact, having grown up with the KJV as I did, college Shakespeare was a pushover. So, how long have you read the KJV?

"Many others also talked as much at random as if they feared that the book which they hinted had come down from heaven in about its present shape, printed and bound, was now to be taken from them by force."

Do you understand what hyperbole is and how it is used in this sentence? The use of sarcastic hyperbole is, again, hardly proof of a KJVO movement at that time. In order to prove that, you'll have to get statements from those opposing the revision (not from their critic, Armitage) to the effect that God preserved His Word only in the KJV, and that they were banding together to fight a revision, which would in its turn be revising the only God-approved version, the KJV. That would then constitute a 19th century movement. But the one quote proves nothing except that Armitage could be sarcastic and knew what hyperbole was.

Hai, Tomadashi!

Nice try, but the Japanese word for friend is actually tomodachi, and it's never used in this way as a form of address.

 

[prophet]

"Homework" would imply that you are my teacher, which is far from the truth. The truth is that you have made assertions, then not backed them up with quotes (basic in a debate) which you claim make your point.

And I don't give a hoot that you don't own a PC. If you can't stand the heat, if you don't have the equipment it takes to properly debate on the Internet, then simply stay out of the kitchen.

What I saw was opposition people making sure the proposed revision would be true to the original Greek and suggesting a trial NT. This is hardly proof of a KJVO movement.

And since I grew up reading the KJV and have heard the KJV from birth and read it for about 55 years now (I'm 62) and preached from it for 44 years, and have read many books from the 19th century, I had no trouble reading Armitage in the slightest. In fact, having grown up with the KJV as I did, college Shakespeare was a pushover. So, how long have you read the KJV?
Do you understand what hyperbole is and how it is used in this sentence? The use of sarcastic hyperbole is, again, hardly proof of a KJVO movement at that time. In order to prove that, you'll have to get statements from those opposing the revision (not from their critic, Armitage) to the effect that God preserved His Word only in the KJV, and that they were banding together to fight a revision, which would in its turn be revising the only God-approved version, the KJV. That would then constitute a 19th century movement. But the one quote proves nothing except that Armitage could be sarcastic and knew what hyperbole was.

Nice try, but the Japanese word for friend is actually tomodachi, and it's never used in this way as a form of address.

So, a huge annual convention crowd, gathered for the purpose of "crushing the movement" of revising the KJB , Isn't a KJVO presence?
The hyperbole used was describing random conversations held by these opponents.

Armitage was giving the general flavor of the convention crowd:
They held the KJB as perfect, in need of no revision.
They viewed the proposed revision as an attack on God's Word.


You, and Dr.Cassidy are still confusing Mr.Carter's objections, and subsequent decisions made, with the Conventioners, who opposed Mr. Carter's idea, and the decision of the committee that agreed to it.

Carter was in favor of as proper revision.

The KJVO Conventioners wanted their Book left unmolested.


As to your numerical superiority:


" For we doren not putte vs among, or comparisoune vs to summen, that comenden hem silf; but we mesuren vs in vs silf, and comparisounen vs silf to vs."


I won't engage in that unwise
practice.


"Albowiem nie smiemy samych siebie w poczet drugich klasc, albo porownywac z niektorymi, ktorzy sami siebie zalecaja; ale ci nie zrozumiewaja, iz sie sami soba miarkuja i sami sie do siebie przyrownywaja."

.

 

[prophet]

14 1 Owh dush Ekedoowin keweyoseweah, keweej tahnahkemenung dush, (kewahbun dahmung dush ewh oopeshegaindahgooze win, ewh tadabenahwa azhe peshegaindahgoo zenid enewh Wagoosejin owh Wayoosemind,)

14. Au dush Ikitouin giuiasiuia, giuij tunukimin'g, (giuabundumg dush. iu obishigendaguziuin, iu tetebi naue ezhibishigendaguzinit iniu Ueguisijin au Ueosimint). baiataiinutinik in shanenitiuin' gaie iu tebuenin.

2 transliterations of one verse, into the same language.....
See any difference?


永遠の友人

Is this better, my dear friend?

 

[TCassidy]

What I saw was opposition people making sure the proposed revision would be true to the original Greek and suggesting a trial NT. This is hardly proof of a KJVO movement.

Don't bother, John, you are just wasting your time. Prophet can't understand the simple statements Armitage wrote. He wants to see a "KJVO moverment" where none existed.

I don't know if he has a comprehension problem or an honesty problem, and it really doesn't matter which. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with him is like talking to the wall.

 

[robycop3]

Excerpts concerning the state of the KJVO in the mid 1800's
Taken from Armitage's "A History of the Baptists" Vol.2: page 901.

"Most of its journals were flooded with comnumications,pro and con, sermons were preached in a number of pul pits denouncing the movement, and public meetings were held in several cities to the same end, notable amongst them one at the Oliver Street Church, in New York, April 4th, 1850."

The movement being denounced here, as usual, is the movement to revise the King James.

"and still others full of fiery denunciation of Cone, Wyckoif and Colgate, and their sympathizers ; as if they were guilty of the basest crime for desiring as good a version for the English speaking people as the Baptists were giving to the East Indians."

Tell me this isn't KJVO.

You can act like it isn't, but nothing is new under the Sun.
This battle started in 1836 in the American Bible societies.

There were similar battles in England 200 years before that.

1970 was just another wave....

BIGGG Difference!

The 19th C. "movements" didn't go much beyond the steepled ivy-covered towers, and they certainly didn't spawn a new genre of literature as the current buzz has. they were mere flashes in the pan compared to the loud bang of the current idea.

In fact, Dr. Wilkinson incorporated much of the material from those early sputters into his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, but they still remained mustly unknown and uncared-about until Ray and later Fuller published their works. Ruckman's Bible Babel snuck into the kitchen thru the doggie door.

No one doubts there have been KJVO advocates since 1611, as there's been for every widespread English Bible translation since Tyndale's time. but the CURRENT KJVO myth has its own unique character & is more widespread than any similar doctrine before it.

And it's JUST AS WRONG NOW as it was in its earlier forms.

 

[TCassidy]

Here is an historical perspective of the American Bible Society and its position on the KJV.

It had nothing at all to do with KJVOism. It was Baptists insisting that "baptidzo" be translated as "dip" or "immerse" - which the baby sprinklers objected to. The Baptists insisted the new oriental translations must reflect the actual meaning of the word rather than how it was translated in the KJV.

"But as the Pedobaptists of different names were overwhelming in their number, and but a very few Baptist names appeared in the list of its officers, the thing had but a feeble hold on a large portion of our community, who I knew were much too remiss in their support of benevolent undertakings which were wholly managed by their own men."

(The Rise of the American and Foreign Bible Society By David Benedict, 1860 pages 213-216)

Those against the revision were not KJVO. They were baby sprinklers!

 

[John of Japan]

So, a huge annual convention crowd, gathered for the purpose of "crushing the movement" of revising the KJB , Isn't a KJVO presence?
The hyperbole used was describing random conversations held by these opponents.

Armitage was giving the general flavor of the convention crowd:
They held the KJB as perfect, in need of no revision.
They viewed the proposed revision as an attack on God's Word.

Sorry, you haven't proved this and cannot prove this. But give it a try. Show me where in Armitage or anywhere else that anyone in that day held the KJV to be perfect. And give quotes.

You, and Dr.Cassidy are still confusing Mr.Carter's objections, and subsequent decisions made, with the Conventioners, who opposed Mr. Carter's idea, and the decision of the committee that agreed to it.

Carter was in favor of as proper revision.

Yes, a proper revision from the Greek and Hebrew--definitely not a KJVO position.

The KJVO Conventioners wanted their Book left unmolested.

Give me an Armitage quote to prove this.

 

[John of Japan]

14 1 Owh dush Ekedoowin keweyoseweah, keweej tahnahkemenung dush, (kewahbun dahmung dush ewh oopeshegaindahgooze win, ewh tadabenahwa azhe peshegaindahgoo zenid enewh Wagoosejin owh Wayoosemind,)

14. Au dush Ikitouin giuiasiuia, giuij tunukimin'g, (giuabundumg dush. iu obishigendaguziuin, iu tetebi naue ezhibishigendaguzinit iniu Ueguisijin au Ueosimint). baiataiinutinik in shanenitiuin' gaie iu tebuenin.

2 transliterations of one verse, into the same language.....
See any difference?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

永遠の友人

Is this better, my dear friend?

As far as the Japanese goes, yes, it means "eternal friend." As far as the truth of the matter is, no offense, but having never met you in person or interacted in any way but here in BB debating, I can't consider you a friend as per the Bible: "A friend loveth at all times" (Prov. 17:17).

 

[robycop3]

Well, sort of. I don't see KJVOism as a "movement." It includes Pentecostals, Protestants, Baptists, and even a Mormon or two.

It is much too broad to have the consistency necessary for it to be a "movement." It is simply a broad spectrum of people who have a similar view of a single doctrine, quite often rejecting any other similarities.

It is rather like calling Fundamentalism a "movement" when the only thing the adherents have in common is the 5 fundamentals of the faith. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe the 5 fundamentals but they certainly would not, for the most part, consider themselves part of the same "movement."

I think it is always dangerous to pigeon-hole people based on a single characteristic. When we make that error we are much less likely to listen to them and give their position an honest hearing, but rather dismissing them because we think we already have them "pegged."

I reckon that COULD work for me.

KJVO is not an organized effort by supporters of a common goal; it's more or less a trend among a minority of those who claimta worship God.

But one thing's for certain...whatever we call it, be a movement, idea, trend, etc. , it's based upon a false doctrine, invented by men, not found whatsoever in Scripture.