"KJVO" Beginnings

Askjo,

This post is uncalled for.

1. It does not fit the OP.

2. You are claiming professors from TTU have abandoned the Bible faith, That is an outright LIE!

3. You probably were not even born at the time that we are discussing the beginning of the KJV movement and TTU. Were you? If you were not then all you have heard is 'hearsay'. Same as gossip.

 

The JW's and the Mormons and David Koresh and Jim Jones and SDA all started out using only the KJV. The JW's and SDA went and wrote their own Bible many years after they were founded. So, which cults have been founded using only the NIV or other MV?

The KJVO movement is very recent in Christian history and its arguments greatly parallel the Latin Vulgate only movement in the middle ages.

 

Mongol Servant,

Thanks for your preliminary response to my question. I look forward to more details so we can discuss this more thoroughly.

Just wondering, what does the highlighted quote have to do with our discussion? Should we depend on Muslims to determine for us which translations to use? Seems to me that they have their own 'Translation Controversy' (see http://www.submission.org/quran/warsh.html or http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/warsh.html)- you might call it the HQVO (Hafs Quran Version Only) controversy. :laugh:

 

Another made a comment about having Muslims dictate a version, with which I also agree, but suggest you are definitely mistaken about the "catholics" using "an MV". The Vulgate, and "Old Latin", upon which "Catholic Bibles" are based, are hardly "modern versions", having been around for 1800 or so years. The fact that I don't read Latin, at all, any more than I read Greek, fluently, does not change that history.

One might note that "Calvary" is a Latin term and comes from a translation of the Greek "κρανιον", and is accurately rendered "skull" in the other three Gospels, as the alternate name for Golgotha. And I just checked out twenty versions of the NT on-line. Every one of them rendered this as either "skull" or "Calvary". And none of the five Greek versions I have access to had this as anything but "κρανιον", so I see no evidence that "Calvary", or at least "κρανιον" in the texts, was deleted, at all. Translated consistently, yes. Do you somehow see something wrong with that, even if it does not agree with some 'song', either you or I like to sing?

Also nothing like 'impugning motives', about "larger publishing houses", absent any facts, hunh?

I don't mind discussing issues with substance, but it is extremely hard to discuss "personal preferences"- facts or no facts, which is exactly what this is.

Or "mud-slinging!"

Ed

 

Very true, Mexdeaf. I know of no TTU profs who abandoned the Bible faith.

 

So does the Bishop's Bible, Ed. The YLT says 'Be diligent'.

And do ya REALLY think anyone who SHOULD answer is gonna answer your question? Maybe they think it's rhetorical.

 

Perhaps we should take a very brief look at the origin of the KJV's dominance as a background for the rise of KJVO.

In 1611, the Geneva Bible was the 'standard' English BV in the British realm. Most people simply couldn't afford to buy a copy of the AV, and the Geneva served them fine. And KJ's TAX STAMP didn't make the AV any cheaper.

The GB continued in use among the common people for a good while , and continued in print until 1644, although almost every Anglican church used the AV. However, the price of the AV had come down, making it more affordable, and many Brits who longed for the restoration of the monarchy, bought AVs, while GB sales declined.

With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, all things Puritan were viewed with suspicion, and the GB & other versions went the way of the dinosaur, especially when the govt. forbade the sale or printing of any other English version besides the AV within the realm, & only the Barker printing family could print the AV. Besides that, the AV stood on its own merit, and most copies were made from superior materials. Thus, the AV began its long reign as the #1 English BV.

It was the British who made the AV & it was the British who first began making newer versions. However, KJVO arose first in the USA, as this nation was the first to make excellent newer versions. (Remember, the first British attempts were duds.)

It appears that the KJVO doctrine is simply deja vu of the "Geneva Only" idea, main difference being the KJVOs have the modern media to hawk their wares, & that the KJVOs have invented umpteen sub-doctrines to attempt to justify the main doctrine.

 

I do not think you fully understand what the definition of the Bible Faith is. The point is that they deteriorated their Bible Faith. According to JOJ’s quotation on Dr. Lee Roberson’s announcement, the issue was NOT allowed to be discussed. Why is that? Students? Did Lee silence them? If so, these professors? Disagree with me about that? Ok, look at David Cloud’s testimony, he complained about his teachers at TTU. I read some books that David authored and repeatedly found his quotations in different areas in his books. What quotations in these books did I find is to say, “I was not told….” “I was not told….” “I was not told….” Lee’s announcement and David’s quotations are controversial.

 

1 Corinthians 14:38

 

So which is it? They "abandoned" their faith, or they "deteriorated" their faith? You simply must be more precise with your language if you want respect.

Dr. Lee Roberson is a man of tremendous integrity. The decision he made at that time was exactly the right one to preserve the ministry of the school and protect us young preachers from radicalism. Being KJVO is one thing (something very rare in those days); being a radical who wanted to remake the school is another. Would that other Fundamentalists had half of Dr. Lee Roberson's wisdom.

 

The beginnings of KJVO and its continuation have a thread of DISHONESTY running through them!

When Wilkinson wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, he wasn't trying to start a new doctrine; he was responding to a squabble within his cult. However, he did very little research besides finding pro-KJVO comments made by other authors. He did absolutely NOTHING to verify any of the assertions he copied into his book. One glaring example is the "Psalm 12:7 thingie" which the AV 1611 itself proves wrong.

The dishonesty began with whoever "J. J. Ray" is/was. He copied very heavily from Wilkinson in his 1955 book God Wrote Only One Bible. Proof? Just read both boox, one after the other.

Dr. Ruckman copied some off each of the above two authors, but he added plentya horse feathers of his own. At least he gives Wilkinson and "Ray" credit for their work.

Dr. D. O. Fuller copied heavily from Wilkinson and some from Ray in writing his book Which Bible", but worse than that, he triedta hide W's CULT AFFILIATION. Just how HONEST is that? Don't believe it? JUST READ THE BOOK.

And Gail Riplinger takes dishonesty within KJVO to new heights with her DELIBERATE MISQUOTES! Here's an example which anyone can easily verify for him/herself:

On Page 2 of her New Age Bible Versions, quoting Edwin Palmer, she writes...

...(Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, P.2)

The CORRECT statement from Palmer is...

...(Edwin Palmer, The Making Of A Contemporary Translation, P. 143)

If ya wanna know more about GAR's dishonesty, I suggest reading A Critique Of Gail Riplinger's Scholarship And KJV Onlyism by Daniel Corner. If you do so & wonder whether Corner or Riplinger is right, just verify for yourself from Riplinger's boox & the sources from which she quotes.


Loox as if there's a lotta tedious reading ahead, but if ya wanna know the TRUTH, it's something that should be done. Having read all those boox, I speak from a base of knowledge gleaned from those readings. The above boox are the foundation stones of the current KJVO doctrine, and I believe if YOU read'em, you'll see the threads of DISHONESTY to which I refer. Ya can't talk the talk if ya don't walk the walk.

I believe you will discover both the roots of the current doctrine, its incorrectness, and the DISHONESTY which runs rife through KJVO's founding literature if you're willing to brush aside mosta the talk, both for & against KJVO and FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF by reading those boox & verifying their assertions through your own research.

 

Quoted from post #53 above:

Here is the proper way to misquote Palmer:

" ... few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. "

 

John,

Thanks for speaking up. People who were not there and are reading what others say will jump to their own conclusions- leaving their mental parachutes behind.

I suppose that those of us who lived through the era will constantly be fighting the 'historical revisionists'. I just love it when folks who were babies when this happened say, "Well if Dr. Soandso were alive today he would take OUR position." Those of us who knew those godly men, sat under their teaching, and gleaned in their fields of wisdom know better, but good luck trying to convince them (revisionists) of the facts.

 

Amen. We're "old school," Brother Mexdeaf, aren't we? :wavey:

 

Are you saying that you have read all these books to which you refer? Have you read them personally or have you read about them in other books?

 

Luke 18:8; Mark 16:1-14.

 

Proverbs 26:4,5

 

God never told us to check out brain at the door.

Faith is rather simple, actually. And faith and reason go hand in hand. Why? Because God made all of creation, and He did so with order and reason. He made things with causes and effects, and gave us the ability to undertand them. Not everything happens in perfect order, and sometimes God takes us through a new door, but faith and reason are still two sides of the same coin.

Besides, I do belioeve your use of the term "Words of God" was a bit loaded with implication. The bible is the word of God, no matter which translation you pick up. Man may try to twist it, but God's word is still the same. It doesn't just reside in a single TRANSLATION.