How did the Modern KJVO Movement Get Started?

Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.

KJVOnlyism doesn't argue from unwarranted assumptions? You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break...

 

Nuff said? Are you kidding???
Who was it in "academia" that led the "attack on the Scriptures?" That is a wildly egregious charge. There is a HUGE difference between attacking the King James Version and attacking KJV-Onlyism.

Since you have claimed "veracity," then perhaps you could provide us with the Scriptural Proof for the complete and total rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word. My Geneva Bible alone completely shoots down your KJV-Onlyism.

This should not be such a daunting task if your claim of "veracity" is accurate. </font>[/QUOTE]Your argument is just as good as the arguments for including the "lost books of the Bible"--the Apocrypha. Maybe we ought to include The Shepherd of Hermas too. What do you think?

BTW, I don't have a problem with your Geneva Bible except that it doesn't shoot down any argument of mine. Please explain. You're leaving too much space between your premise and conclusion.

 

Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.

KJVOnlyism doesn't argue from unwarranted assumptions? You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break... </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you pontificate without giving a single reasoned reply to any one of my assertions. What do you think that I believe? I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual domonance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America. It's language and doctrine permeates all of American values and ideals until around the 1950's when it was challenged by various forms of relativism.

 

Which assertion would you like me to start with?

Fair enough to get us started, what specifically do you believe?

And why was that? It began with its endorsement by the English crown and the CoE's determined and successful effort to make it the only version available. By the time the US won its independence, it was standard... although not by choice but by force. Change is always difficult and Bibles in a relative sense were far more expensive then than now so there was no immediate change.

However, shortly after the Revolution, religious freedom manifested itself as new translations began to be made. One was Webster's. Progressively others appeared and production escalated during the 20th century propelled by new discovery and a need for the Bible in today's common tongue.

All in all, the 3 most popular MV's of our day have performed quite well as far as acceptance when compared to the KJV. When the KJV was introduced, it took about a hundred years and the force of government to make it accepted.

MV's have been accepted voluntarily within 30 years of their initiation.

Nope. You can call lower textual criticism many things but it is not relativism.

You seem to have assumed your conclusion- that deviation from the KJV is somehow dishonest, ill-founded, or else motivated by a denial of scriptural authority. Believing what the Word of God (NASB) teaches is not more "relativism" than believing what the Word of God (KJV) teaches.

 

What do I think? I think you have deliberately ignored my request to prove your contention. Go back and read my post, and please answer my questions.

As for the Apocrypha, I have stated on many occasions that I possess a deep love for it, and it is in my Authorised Version. The Translators apparently had sufficient regard for it as to include it in the 1611 Authorised Version. It is located between the Old and New Testaments.
"If your King James Bible ain't got the Apocrypha, you ain't got a real King James Bible." [sic]

If there were Scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism (of course you still haven't provided any), then the Geneva Bible would not be God's Holy Word. Yet the Geneva Bible IS God's Holy Word.

As you are evidently missing my point, let me simplify:
Premise: There does not appear to be any Scriptural support for KJV-Onlyism.
Conclusion: KJV-Onlyism is an Unscriptural claim.

One more time, please provide the list of the people to whom you make mention in your prior post. Additionally, kindly produce your Scriptural support for the complete rejection of all other English Versions of God's Holy Word.

 

I don't see why
you can't check out Hezekiah 3:18
and Act 32:18 for yourself

 

Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.

KJVOnlyism doesn't argue from unwarranted assumptions? You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break... </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you pontificate without giving a single reasoned reply to any one of my assertions. What do you think that I believe? I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual domonance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America. It's language and doctrine permeates all of American values and ideals until around the 1950's when it was challenged by various forms of relativism. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear UnPaid, "Historical Influence"? Hello! what about BEFORE 1611?
It is truly sad that you have chosen the unscriptural myth over the historical influence that predated the KJV1611, The Originals, MSS, etc...the same place where the KJV was translated from is where we can get our MV's today Please abandon your man made unscriptural myth.

 

The KJV has been the Bible by choice and consensus of the Bible-believing church in the English-speaking world, especially America.

For a preponderance of reasons, the KJV is the English version to be used by Bible-believing Christians in the English language.

Claptrap! You have totally misconstrued history. This is sheer nonsense. Your statements are simply not true. What more can be said. BTW, what translation did the American Puritans use?

So, how many people use Webster’s Bible today? Did the KJV outsell the other editions? Where are all these other editions? Jefferson’s mangled edition is only a footnote to history. ad infinitum

Again, simply hogwash. It was not the force of government—this is a ridiculous assertion. The KJV held such sway that it morphed our culture, ideas, and thinking into its form. Read even secular historical sources and you hear the echoes of the KJV. Considering the modern rapid means of distribution, mass production, etc., the MV’s have fared very poorly against the KJV. Furthermore, there is no one MV that has gained ascendancy over its competitors. They just keep bobbing up like corks and floating off the scene after awhile. Even the NASB and the NIV have not become the standard for judging all others. New versions are already cutting into their market share.

What in the world does “lower textual criticism” have to do with my statement that you quoted? Be sure that you understand my statement before jumping off to delusions. Read carefully. I said that the American values and ideals shaped by the KJV were challenged by the rise of relativism in the 1950’s. It began in the 1950’s (perhaps even the 1940’s) but it was very evident by the 1960’s. It had nothing to do with the rationalistic textual criticism that rose during the last half of the nineteenth century.

</font>[/QUOTE]Irrelevant, immaterial, presumptive, ill-considered and WRONG! you have totally misunderstood and misstated my conclusion and your own conclusion is senseless. Sir, you would have done better not to even have taken notice and replied.

 

Hey... if you ever wanted a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black... here it is.

KJVOnlyism doesn't argue from unwarranted assumptions? You think KJVOnlyism is rational and logical when you cannot cite a single scriptural nor historical fact that proves it? Give me a break... </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you pontificate without giving a single reasoned reply to any one of my assertions. What do you think that I believe? I can give you a historical fact--the historic influence and virtual domonance of the KJV in the English-speaking world, especially in America. It's language and doctrine permeates all of American values and ideals until around the 1950's when it was challenged by various forms of relativism. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear UnPaid, "Historical Influence"? Hello! what about BEFORE 1611?
It is truly sad that you have chosen the unscriptural myth over the historical influence that predated the KJV1611, The Originals, MSS, etc...the same place where the KJV was translated from is where we can get our MV's today Please abandon your man made unscriptural myth. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, Orvie, this does get so tiresome. I noticed that you picked up the name game too. I do suppose Unpaid is cute but not terribly creative and ingenious. Exactly what is the connection since paidogogos[/s] is a Geek…..uh…….I mean Greek word? You’re just too clever for me. TIC

Now, would you please explicitly define the nature of the historical influence myth. Or, is it the KJVO position that you’re calling a myth? You are calling one or the other a man-made myth but isn’t textual criticism a man-made theory spawned out of the intensely rationalistic atmosphere of the nineteenth century? Your MV’s are translated from Greek texts produced by these selfsame theories. Of course, you call this scholarship and you call my historical influence idea mythologizing. What’s the difference except you have bought into a viewpoint and you cannot or refuse to understand anyone else’s point of view that thinks differently or arrives at a different conclusion. It all seems so narrow-minded and droll.

Orvie, old man, you oughta learn to think instead of slurping up without tasting everything some seminary prof or popular book offers. You can’t defend your view because you really don’t know your own arguments and you haven’t been savvy enough to patiently read and understand mine either. For me, it’s rather like fishing on a trout farm. You catch a lot of fish but it ain’t no challenge or much fun.

Bye!

 

Alas, thou hast failed to provide even ONE Scriptural Passage to support KJV-Onlyism.

 

Come on Paid, Dr Bob, Scott J,Robycop, and I have asked you the same question...and you have refused to answer and are building from the roof, down. Our position is that the same place the AV translators found the Scriptures to translate them into the KJV, we should do that today w/ the MV's. Have you forgotten that even the KJV was a MV in 1611? You just keep repeating the same ole, same ole from various Mythites; Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc. Our position predates yours (at least the way I understand it)by 15 centuries (as far as the NT is concerned). We're saying that your position is man made b/c you simply cannot produce one itty-bitty verse to support your view. The KJVO position (at the exclusion of valid BV's) is built on assumption and conjecture. See ya.

 

Alas, thou hast failed to provide even ONE Scriptural Passage to support KJV-Onlyism. </font>[/QUOTE]Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.

Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

 

Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.

Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

BTW, Dr. Bob, you argue from extra-Biblical sources and historical data too. Furthermore, you are begging the question by calling the KJVO position a myth. This has not been established conclusively since the topic is still being debated. You ought to know better and be more scholarly and open-minded. Rational debate is not advanced by using emotionally laden words. This is a poor technique of trying to overwhelm one's opponent when one cannot do it through logic and rational processes. It casts a poor light upon the person using this sorry strategem.

 

Paid-"Cute! You are trying to place a burden of proof upon me that you cannot sustain yourself. First, give me a single verse that clearly supports MV's, an eclectic Greek text, or even translations in general for that matter. Yes, I am well aware that the OT Hebrew was quoted in Greek in the NT. However, this is an argument from inference and the KJVO use the same type of argumentation for preservation which is explicitly stated but not exactly delineated.

Now, you go first. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander."
Orvie-"Here's one for ya, which shows that God has preserved His Word in the MV's, including in 1611-present the KJV: 'So likewise ye,except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.' 1 Cor 14:9 KJV1769 What part of words easy to be understood do you not understand?

 

Come on Paid, Dr Bob, Scott J,Robycop, and I have asked you the same question...and you have refused to answer and are building from the roof, down. Our position is that the same place the AV translators found the Scriptures to translate them into the KJV, we should do that today w/ the MV's. Have you forgotten that even the KJV was a MV in 1611? You just keep repeating the same ole, same ole from various Mythites; Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc. Our position predates yours (at least the way I understand it)by 15 centuries (as far as the NT is concerned). We're saying that your position is man made b/c you simply cannot produce one itty-bitty verse to support your view. The KJVO position (at the exclusion of valid BV's) is built on assumption and conjecture. See ya. </font>[/QUOTE]Orvie, you are just being the tail on the dog. Read my reply to Dr. Bob. You're just gloating over what you think is a knockout blow. If you really had your head, instead of your loyalty much like the loyalty to a football team, in this thing you ought to have anticipated my answer. It wasn't a hard matter to handle. You're just razzling me much like the kids at the football game on Friday night. Likewise, it deserves the same weight of worthy consideration. NONE! Nice talking to ya! Bye!

 

This is an inference and application, not the primary teaching of this passage. This is not necessarily speaking of Scripture--it refers to speaking in the church as in teaching or preaching. It may be applied or inferred to the translation of Scripture but this is not the primary occasion. Inferences and applications are subject to human reasoning and can be wrong. In fact, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that KJVO's use for preservation and the KJVO.

However, by using this type of reasoning, you do legitimatize the KJVO method of argument for preservation in the traditional (received) text and the KJV. You may not agree with the conclusion but at least you must allow the method since you have used inferential reasoning yourself.

Now, establish the superiority of the MV's over the KJV through Scripture.

 

I'm glad 2c ya have a sense of humour "loyalty"? that is very funny. I'm loyal to God's Word even before 1611, and not to a movement that has it's roots in Latin Onlyism, etc. Although your movement predates 1930, as Roby has so brilliantly stated, it has it's modern thrust by the writings of the SDA Wilkinson. Why do you chose sides with Anglican Translators and this Seventh Day Adventist? (Guilt by association cuts both ways )

 

Paid, I sort of appreciate your posts....get to go to SS now, so C U later, and have a gr8 day!

 

Ouch! If you are right, I have a dilemma. Personally, I liked the idea of old John Smyth of the Gainsborough, England congregation who believed that the preaching, teaching, and study of Scripture should come directly from the Greek text. He preached, as I understand, from the Greek. So, according to your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:9 (1769), old John and I are Scripturally wrong. What do you think?