Beginnings of KJV-Only Movement?

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.

 

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 ( ), 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.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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...

 

It's your avatar. He looks ready to fight! :laugh:

 

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?