Beginnings of KJV-Only Movement?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by christianasbookshelf, Aug 21, 2007.

  1. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone have any idea when the King James Only movement actually began? I would be surprised if it was before 1900, but I really don't know, and I've been wondering about this for a while.

    I know that it's a hot topic today, but I'm not even sure it was an issue before 1880 (when, shortly after, the RV came out). Spurgeon clearly said that the KJV has problems, but anyone considering correcting it should be extremely careful. He also defended it in another quote I read, so I know he greatly respected it. But I would like to know who the first person was who said, "The King James Bible is the preserved word of God, 100% accurate with no errors, etc., etc."

    Thanks for any help y'all can provide.
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,650
    Likes Received:
    312
    The position you cite came to the fore in the late 80s. Before that there were vigorious discussions based on the correctness of the methods used by Wescot and Hort and their follow-ons.
    However, in the late 80s, "Ruckmanism" spread beyond a single man and his organization. Much of this was based on the erroneous conflating of the versions and texts issue with the inerrency battles of earlier years.

    For many years this formula sufficed:
    for those who rejected the methodology of Wescott and Hort. Those of us who have done a minimal amount of translation work understand the shortcomings of any vernacular text. Most of my work is done in modern languages. If I have problems going from English to Russian, I can see the problems translators have going from Hebrew/Greek to English.
     
    #3 Squire Robertsson, Aug 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2007
  4. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you! I am KJV only and have been all my Christian life. At 40 I've decided to take a look at the issue again. What bothers me is the attitude of some Christians over this matter. The second post in the link you gave me is from an admin which states: "Be forewarned - there will be no room for inflammatory comments or personal attacks. It will be closed without warning if such appear."

    Shame, shame, shame! He shouldn't have had to even write that. We are Christians, aren't we? Is 1 Cor. 13 still in the Bible? I know all about Ruckman, Sam Gipp and the rest. I've met a lot of those guys personally and heard them preach for years. The one thing that I hate more than anything in this movement is the way personal attacks are made on those who do not see it exactly like they do. It's a complete violation of God's word to treat anyone, let alone another Brother or Sister in Christ, in that manner. If holding the KJV-only position makes one act like that, then I'd rather fellowship with a bunch of ASV carrying godly men who have a deep walk with Christ, than walk with those who hold the KJV up with one hand and curse fellow Christians with their mouths (James 3:9-10). Paul says that your stand is "nothing" without charity.

    I deal in old and rare Christian books. Many of the authors I sell don't hold KJV-only positions (most of them, actually). Men like F. B. Meyer and G. Campbell Morgan, to name a couple. They are "Bible correctors" to some, and to some extremely radical KJV'ers not even saved ( :rolleyes: ), but I have found their writings to be filled with deep spiritual truths. Do I throw them away because they aren't KJV-only? No, I take the meat and throw out the bones.

    Have charity Brethren. Yes, stand on the Book, but Charity is what makes us like our Savior. Not holding the right version in our hands.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Just remember...there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO doctrine.

    However, one CAN use the KJV alone from PERSONAL PREFERENCE, without having the dead bird of the KJVO doctrine around his/her neck. If ya use the KJV alone for any other reason, ya might wanna re-examine the reasons why.
     
  6. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remember my Baptist History prof at NOBTS saying something about the movement beginning around the time of J. Frank Norris. I did a paper on Norris, but I never chased down the connection of him and the KJVO movement...but its a possibility.
     
  7. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I might of heard that, too. It's funny, but things like this sometimes start from a little spark--a comment or theory--and then someone runs with it and--BAM!--Ruckmanism. :laugh: (BTW, I know many fine guys that come out of Ruckman's school, but the caustic nature of the man himself is not godly.)
     
  8. kubel

    kubel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has likely been some form of onlyism for every generation that has had more than one active translation of the Bible available to them in their language.
     
  9. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps. After the Geneva fell out of the way the KJV went pretty much unchallenged until the 1880s when the RV came out. But there were several small-scale translations by others during that time. But I've never read any "onlyism" from that time that compares to what it is today.
     
  10. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I too believe this...

    It was the RCC that persecuted many over onlyism... But instead of KJVO, it was the Latin...

    Satan never changes his tactics, just the situations...

    Many people died at the stake for our Bibles in English...
    We should praise God for the many translations into common language, but because of our pride, we selfishly think we are right, and everyone else is wrong, and also because of our pride, we mistakenly think that God's message is not for the common man.. but only for those that are more spiritually mature...
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    in 5th century Ireland there was only-ism over the Vulgate v Old
    Latin version
     
  12. ByGracethroughFaith

    ByGracethroughFaith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    0

    I think that was very well said.


    BGTF
     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm insulted. When I asked this question the thread got slammed shut (seemingly) within minutes. This has been alive since 10am this morning and it still hasn't been closed! :laugh:
     
  14. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0

    I've enjoyed reading the posts at http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38751&page=2&highlight=Beginnings+KJVO

    I'm not nearly through all of them, but I've leared a few things already. Most of the posts are well thought out and charitable, which I love to see.

    I'm surprised to see most of the posts so far being against the KJVO position. In light of this I'm wondering if these same posters take a stand on the Greek? In other words, is the Textus Receptus , from which the KJV was taken from, perfect? Are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (not sure if I spelled them correctly) good manuscripts and reliable, even though they differ from the TR?

    I have to admit that I'm leaning towards being more a "TR man" than a "KJV man." I have a problem with the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus because I fear they may be tainted by the Roman Catholic Church, and because the evidence for the TR being the correct MS is strong. Older is not always better, but that is the argument for the older manuscripts over the TR. I prefer the most accurate manuscript, which I believe to be the TR.

    Can translation from one language be perfect? Biblically, yes. There are portions of the New Testament where Hebrew was spoken, but the Greek was written, and we would all agree that the "original" was perfect. So there is an example of a perfect translation even though it was voice to text. So it is possible (with God all things are possible). But I plan to study more...
     
    #14 christianasbookshelf, Aug 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2007
  15. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's your avatar. He looks ready to fight! :laugh:
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been studying this issue for quite a while. I am no scholar, by any means. (But my preacher always used to say, "If you don't have the brains, borrow them.")

    I believe that 'textual corruption' works both ways. I do not personally believe that the older manuscripts are any more 'corrupt' than the newer ones.

    I used to be a strong TR man, but the more that I learn about how Erasmus manipulated the text, the less firmly I hold to a strong TR position at the exclusion of all others.

    Not sure that I agree with you :), assuming I understand correctly what you are saying. As far as the Biblical languages are concerned, I do not know but the Hebrew alphabet and a little Greek, but from my experiences with other languages it would seem that a perfect word for word translation from one language to another would be a near impossibility- but I have been wrong before.
     
    #16 Mexdeaf, Aug 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2007
  17. JerryL

    JerryL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read a lot, but only one version at a time unles just for cross referencing. So.... at one point I was KJVonly, then NIVonly, then ESVonly, then The Message only. At this point in time I'm NASBonly.:laugh:

    http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/02/nasb-onlyism-gaining-new-momentum.html
    http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/05/google-buys-out-all-bible-versions.html
     
    #17 JerryL, Aug 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2007
  18. christianasbookshelf

    christianasbookshelf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was specifically thinking of Paul's sermon in Acts 22. At the end of Acts 21 it says, "And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying..." and then he preaches to them.

    Now, what Paul spoke was in Hebrew, and what Luke wrote was in Greek. Were both "inspired"? I believe so. So they have to be perfect--both the speaking and the writing, even though they were two different languages.

    Am I wrong about this?
     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is more Correct?

    1. Glory to Hashem!

    2. Glory to the Lord!
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe the current KJVO doctrine is a fad like Hula Hoops or The Twist, but it spread more slowly and has hung on longer. I think it's headed toward the scrap heap now, as more and more people, aided by the very tools that spread it, are seeing it's just not correct & there's no evidence to support it.

    But again, lemme emphasize the fact that there's nothing wrong with using the KJV alone long as one doesn't diss the decisions of others who opt to use other versions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...