Beginnings of the KJVO sect

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by tinytim, Dec 10, 2003.

  1. tinytim

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

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where and when did the KJVO sect begin? Pleeease don't say 1611. That's to easy. I have a few text books from the 1930's and none even hint of any kind of teaching that the KJV is perfect. All state that it is a great translation. None even hint that anyone even held to what is now known as KJVO. I was told that it started in the 60's. I have also read that our great fundamentalist fore fathers believed in using other versions. Is that correct?

    Just wondering.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    It can't be too old. I was talking to a well known fundamentalist preacher a few years ago before he went to be with the Lord and he was telling me how he could well remember when it as not an issue. The two acceptable versions in his time were the KJV and NASV. No one fought over it. He for one was saddened at the new fight. I will not post his name for fear of opening him to attack, but most IFB posters would know the name well.
     
  3. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    B. Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist wrote in 1930 (I believe)a KJVO book entitled, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated"-I'm not exactly sure, however some IFB such as Ruckman, D.O.Fuller, etc took off with it either in the late 60's our early 70's. A clarification would be appreciated.
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that is correct. Doug Kutilek wrote an article that goes into more detail:

    http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/kjvoroots.html
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    To my knowledge, modern KJVO began in 1930 when SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST leader/preacher/teacher Benjamin Wilkinson published his book, "Our Authorized Version Vindicated". In 1955, one J.J.Ray published "God Wrote only One Bible", which copied much of Wilkinson's work.

    During the period 1930-1955, there was very little KJVO activity since there were few other English Bible translations in use at the time besides the KJV, but the roots were planted for the present circus. Wilkinson was the first author to misapply Psalm 12:6-7 to the Onlyist cause. In the URL provided below, you can check out Wilkinson's other errors for yourselves.

    To my knowledge, the first BAPTIST to publish a KJVO work was Dr. D.O.Fuller, who published "Which Bible?"in 1970. I have read only the 1975 edition, so I don't know what may have been different in the earlier editions, but I did notice that the 1975 edition contains mucho material from Wilkinson's book, with absolutely no mention of his SDA affiliation.(I DO recommend that everyone interested in the versions issue read Wilkinson's, Ray's, and Fuller's books!)

    It was during the early '70s that the KJVO movement began to pick up steam, especially after the NIV & the NASB were published. Soon after, the present crop of KJVO authors and outspoken advocates arose-Ruckman, Riplinger, Hyles, Waite, Cloud, Marrs, Moorman, Watkins, Reagan, etc. However, there's never been any "official" KJVO organization. The closest thing to it has been some large local church congregations.

    You've probably seen that those who claim to be KJVOs run the gamut from the well-meaning people to the just plain stupid ones to the deliberate liars and charlatans who deceive the others. Most everyday KJVOs have read some book from one of the authors mentioned above and taken it as truth without taking the time to do the research to see just how true or untrue the book's assertions were.

    Here's a URL that's typical of the sources I've used to gather the above info.

    http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm

    To me, having the TRUTH is far more important than "winning" a debate, so I took the time & money to read the books by Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller, Waite, Ruckman, Riplinger, Moorman, and others, and to research the assertions made in those books as well as those made by Hudson, Kutilek, White, Joyner, and other anti-Onlyism authors, which led me to conclude that KJVO is a totally man-made doctrine that has no Scriptural support(In fact, Scripture implies it to be false) and no other evidence supporting it at all, while there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence, both empirical and circumstantial against it.

    The above, to the best of my knowledge, is the beginnings of modern KJVO. It's an American thing, adopted by some British, since the KJV is a British version, while the most popular newer versions are American works. But the most compelling thing about KJVO is that it's totally man-made, without one scintilla of Scriptural support. My research has shown me that, while there was some pro-KJV activity among 19th C.scholars such as Dean Burgon, there was no KJV-"ONLY" movement among those men. In fact, Dean Burgon was hoping someone would produce both a revision of the Textus Receptus AND that someone would produce a modern-English Bible with the TR's and the KJV's faults corrected.

    Please feel free to check out both what I've typed here and the info found on the URL I've provided, to see for yourselves who's telling the truth and who's just a-woofin'.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Strong pseudo-ifb leaders like Jack Hyles MOCKED the only sect/position in 1970. I heard him speak and others can verify this was his and later Hyles-Anderson College position.

    But by 1980 he was saying that if a person was saved using any other translation, he was not truly saved. Again, I will let others verify this as a historic statement.

    And sycophants, cronies, and the ilk were quick to jump on the bandwagon and make it a NEW "fundamental of the faith". And thus the sect took impetus and now, it is estimated, has corrupted 20-25% of historic fundamentalism.
     
  7. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll just address the KJVO beginnings of one well-known KJVO proponant, Jack Hyles:

    In his early books, the issue is never brought up. When he mentions always carrying a Bible or New Testament (to be prepared to witness) in his 1962 book Let's Build an Evangelistic Church, he doesn't mention that it be a KJV, even though this would have been 10 years after publication of the full RSV.

    In another early book (perhaps 1964's Let's Hear Jack Hyles) he expresses his belief in inerrancy in the original manuscripts. [Emphasis mine.]

    In 1967's Let's Study the Revelation, Hyles writes (in reference to several verses in Revelation) that the KJV is not always a perfect translation. (See his comments on Rev. 22:19 for example.)

    In 1973 the ogre of incipient "Ruckmanism" rears its head on the campus of Hyles-Anderson College. A young, new Christian by the name of Jim Black is nearly expelled for expressing what the school (and Hyles) mistook for KJVO leanings.

    1978- Once again Ruckmanism is suspected on campus. In a chapel sermon entitled "Mistakes in the King James" Hyles tears into the belief that only the KJV is the perfect Word of God. For good measure, some students are expelled in short course for promoting that very idea.

    1979- Dave Hyles is asked, while lecturing a class, "What tools should pastors use in preparing a sermon?", or something to that effect. He responds (in part) by saying that his father (J.H.) consulted several different Bible versions, and so should the questioner (and presumably the other students present).

    1980- Both the school's Handbook and Yearbook contain the historic, orthodox statement that God's Word is inerrant in "the originals".

    And then the change took place.

    1983- Jack Hyles preachs his sermon Logic Must Prove the King James Bible, in which he renounces any belief in "inerrant originals"; and states his belief in the inerrancy of the KJV only.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks, Larry, for verifying the example. I know you were busy typing that when I asked for help verifying it, but our sovereign God was obviously in control!

    God bless.
     
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,256
    Likes Received:
    4
    Here's a good paper on Hyles gradual descent into madness....written by Gary R. Hudson

    LINK

    From that page....

    “I don’t like the statement of faith that says, ‘We believe the Bible is the word of God in the original manuscripts.’ In the first place, there are no original manuscripts anywhere in the world tonight. None. And if the word of God was only the original manuscripts, there is no word of God available for mankind today...I am not going to stand here as your pastor preaching a book[KJV] that is not the word of God...I’m not going to do it...The countries of this world look to America for missionaries...Of all the nations on the face of this earth, it seems to me that God would give the key nation the word of God” (Jack Hyles, sermon tape, “Logic Must Prove The King James,” April 8, 1984).....

    “Now if the very words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the words of God” (Hyles, Enemies of Soulwinning, ibid., bold ours)....

    “If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that the incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever” (Hyles, ibid., bold ours)....
     
  10. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob- yes, I hadn't yet seen your post when I began typing.
    I was doing the dates of the events from memory, and for the "Logic" sermon I see from the post by Bro. Curtis that it's from 1984 (I put 1983).
    Oh well, I was off by a year. [​IMG]

    Jack Hyles' change in belief is glaringly obvious nonetheless.
     
  11. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's see, God created the heaven and the earth...yes, right after that in the Garden of Eden. [​IMG]
     
  12. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    And the spirit of the modern versions surfaced not much later...

    "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said ... ?"
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV was a modern version to those who had the Geneva.

    Unfortunately, Satan has filled the hearts and heads of many to embrace KJVOism.
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    timothy 1769 said:

    And the spirit of the modern versions surfaced not much later...

    "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said ... ?"


    And Eve saith unto the serpent, Nay, since thou askest, God hath not said. Away with thy KJV-onlyism! It causeth me to spue chunks. Returnest thou to Pensacola from whence thou camest, and tell that fox Ruckman that he is a prating nitwit and a ruffian.
     
  15. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may or may not have already posted this,so here it is,read it or reject it at your leisure:


    KJVonlyism in 1890: "I will take up the King James Bible; I consider it to be a perfect Bible." (Talmage T.D, vol.18, pg.255)

    KJVonlyism preached in 1880 in the Gospel Standard. Philpots:"The AV we believe is the grand bulwark of Protestantism; the safeguard of the Gospel and the treasure of the Church, and we should be traitors, in every sense of the word, if we consented in giving it up to be rifled by Puseyites, consealed Papist, German Neologians, Infidel Divines, Arminians, Socinians, and the whole tribe of the enemies of God and Godliness. To alter our Bible [AV] would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the word of God. There would be two Bibles spread through out the land and what CONFUSION this would create in almost every place."

    KJVonlyism preached by a Baptist in 1680:"A university man met Bunyan on a road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan,’ how dare you preach when you don’t have the original scriptures?' "Do you have them, the copies written by the Apostles and Prophets?" asked Bunyan,’ No' replied the scholar,’ But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.' "And I" replied Bunyan "believe the English Bible [the AV] to be a true copy too."(Burgess, McCreary, John Bunyan, the immortal dreamer, Anderson, Indiana: 1928 Gospel Trumpet Co., p.38)


    So, as we can see here from these examples that what some call KJVonlyism, turns out to be what is called being a Bible believer. There is nothing "new" about it.
     
  16. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Westminster Confession, 1646

    V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

    VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

    Couldn't have said it better myself!
     
  17. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...and where does the Confession state that the KJV is the only version? their words apply to accurate translations, don't you think? and BTW, the AV1611 was translated just a few decades before, and the 1769 reads somewhat differently, punctuation, spelling, etc, sooooo which is God's ONLY Word? 1611? 1769? was every "jot and tittle" inspired in the 1611? if so, it was 'lost' in the 1769? "jot and tittle" being Hebrew and Greek, not English. God bless..
     
  18. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    I forgot to add, "and kept pure in all ages", does that include the years up to 1610? yes! and today the Word of God is kept pure in reliable MSS, copies, etc
     
  19. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would assume they are referring to the Hebrew and Greek. Even so they are clearly claiming perfect preservation of those texts.
     
  20. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    AV Defender said:

    The parenthetical "AV" inserted is not a part of the original quote, which was not so much a defense of a particular translation as of the practice of using an English Bible.

    Besides, there is every reason to believe Bunyan used the Geneva Bible.

    In A Vindication of Gospel Truths Opened, Bunyan expounds on Acts 3:21 from the Geneva:

     

Share This Page

Loading...