Beginnings of KJV-Only Movement?

I had a different avatar at the time, though. Same beaver, but he had a puzzled look on his face, and he was holding up a scented pine tree air freshsner. (You couldn't see what he was holding up, but I know it from that cartoon episode.)

They just like you more than they like me. That's okay. Don't worry about me. I'll just sit here and cry in the dark. Alone.








:laugh::laugh:

 

OH, get over it... Daggett! :laugh: :laugh:

:tonofbricks:

 

Not all, my friend. There were revivals before 1611 and there have been revivals in non-English speaking countries. Perhaps, "All the great revivals in English speaking lands since the mid 17th century came while using the KJV.

 

Not every spoken word recorded in the Bible was inspired by God, but every word in the Bible, whether spoken or not, was inspired.

 

Amen, Brother christianasbookshelf -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Unlike others who came to KJVO on another path
you seem to understand both 'Hasheem' and 'Lord'.
The philosophy that some KJVOs (the more radical & missionary
/your ain't saved if you ain't with us/ KJVOs) started with
was a mix of anti-semitic, anti-success, & anti-education
who didn't study very much so they would know what
was going on about them.

 

Well, the Irish revival, short lived as it was, in the 5th century comes to mind immediately.

 

yup, and I think we can't leave the Reformation out of the picture.

Your point has some merit, but it is not as clear cut as it seems at first view.

 

All the great divisions among the Protestents of
the 19th Century (1801-1900) used the KJV1769
Edition, so popular now.
With his KJV1769 Edition in hand, Joseph Smith Jr.
founded the Mormons.
Likewise the founders of:
-Jehovah's Witnesses
-Adventist Movement.

As well, the great revivals used the KJV.

 

Revivals prior to 1611:

Because of the coming of the Second Millinnium of Chirst:
(1001-2000), there followed 150 years of general revival:
pilgrimages to the Holy Land,
The Catholic Apostolic Church of the East
(AKA: East Syrian, Nestorian) became the
largest Denomination on the face of the earth,
12 Million adherants (the area was mostly the
'-stan' countries today: Pakistan, Katzakistan, etc.)

(let me remind everybody: Today's Protestants while writing
their own histories, are swolling the RCC (Roman Catholic Church)
pre-history, most of which just ain't all that true.

 

Christianbookshelf:I think charity has to always govern our actions no matter what the issue is. I was thinking yesterday that we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. God has clearly used the KJV over the centuries. All the great revivals came from it. It's transformed the lives of millions of people. There is no doubt it has God's blessing.

And I believe you've touched upon a prob that comes with using only the KJV and never reading any other version, especially a modern one. The KJV often uses 'charity' where WE say 'love'. To us, each of those words has a very different meaning from the other, but in 1611 they could often be interchanged with no prob. So, the KJV isn't wrong in doing that, but it's less-clear to a MODERN English user.

I believe C4K has summed up the correct view of the great revivals of the past.

I'm also of the opinion that we do not need another translation to update the English language. Our language is horrible now.

But, like it or not, it's the language into which mosta us were born/raised, and will continue to be the language of mosta our children.

At one time, here's how John 3:16 appeared in English:

“God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

This was perfectly-understandable to the English of a thousand years ago, but can YOU understand it? Those people lived, using the language style God had given them. He allowed it to change, so about 400 years later, the same verse read thus in English:

"for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,"(From Wycliffe's 1384 Bible)

If John 3;16 weren't the most-familiar verse in the Bible, you must admit many would have a little hesitation in deciphering it correctly. But it was in the most modern English of 1384. And mosta those people woulda had a problem understanding the earlier proto-English reading above. Those who were able to get away from the Latin Vulgate didn't stick to the 400-yr-old English version.

So it appears that if we wanna communicate with our family/friends/neighbors/associates, we must continue to do so in our horrible English.


When the KJV was written the language was at its height.

Purely a matter of conjecture & opinion. Those brilliant people treated many ailments by bloodletting, to drain away the "bad humours", & treated headaches by cutting the skull open.


It's a literary masterpiece, and I believe it exalts God to his rightful place. No matter the outcome of my own personal study, I cannot fathom putting aside my King James Bible.

No one here is asking you to do that. I, for instance, wish merely to remind you that the KJV is NOT the only valid English version in existence, and that my choice to use multiple versions is just as correct as yours is touse only one version.

But you asked where/when the KJVO doc began, and the correct, full answer calls for the shedding of some unfavorable light upon that doctrine itself.

One good thing that has come from the KJVO movement is the unity within KJVO churches (and I understand that they are exclusive to a fault in other areas).

But, sometimes that unity is over the KJVO DOCTRINE, and not exclusively over CHRIST. Personally, I won't attend a church that advertises itself to be a "KJVO" church because I know KJVO is a false doctrine & therefore that church already has one false doc. I useta attend a church where the KJV alone was used, but they never placed any KJVO statement upon their shingle or bulletin board.


There is nothing like hearing the pastor read Scripture and see it yourself, word-for-word, in the pew. It's total confusion when you have a Bible different from the preacher. In addition, it's hard for a pastor to do a word study when the word he's studying is different in your translation. Would this idea work in a NIVO or NASVO church? Yes. But I don't know of such churches. So for unity's sake I'll probably always hold to the KJV and probably always attend, for the most part, KJVO churches (as a member).

Appears ya prefer the KJV as a matter of personal taste, which is fine & dandy. My pastor uses the NKJV & he's made it plain that's what he uses for all his preaching, so there's no prob in following him during a sermon.

The probs begin if/when one's personal preference develops into doctrine, which hardens into dogma, & one startsta believe the hooey written by certain Sensationalist KJVO authors whose main interest is selling boox. Just be careful that doesn't happen to YOU.


BTW, some folx will tell ya that KJVO came about before Wilkinson's 1930 book, from the writings of such men as Philip Mauro(1859-1952), but, as Dean Burgon did, he mostly denounced the British Revised Version & did not start a fad among the general public . As I said earlier, it took later authors using MODERN MEDIA to start this fad.

 

:applause: :thumbsup:

 

I started ministry in 1945, and the kjv was upheld as if it was God's direct word, hand-delivered. The upholding of the kjv picked up tempo when the RSV appeared and changed on word "maiden" in place of "virgin". It was a time when we were fighting against modernism and the kjv came to the forefront as the version of choice among evangelicals (all called fundamentalists at the time).

I grew up using the kjv and still use my 1945 copy in the pulpit and in personal study. I do, however, have corrected words written in the margin and when I read scripture, I automatically insert the changes as I go.

The kjv is a preachers' Bible. It offers perfect sermon outlines in the text itself.

At one time, when a layman prayed in public he most often included kj language, always including the "thee's" and "thou's.

I think the better question might be, When did the various translations take over?

Cheers,

Jim

 

With all due respect my friend, I'm having a time trying to shake off the feeling that you have determined how you want this discussion to end and are trying to steer the dialogue in that direction. If you take the time to read the 100s of posts on the KJVO issue on this forum, you will find that approx 99.999% of those who disagree with the KJVO movement- agree with your statement regarding the literary merit of the KJB. The problem "aint the work, it's the attitude" (in my opinion). While there is some merit in your statement re: the horrible state of the English Language today, the MVs that I use (NIV, NASV, NKJV, ESV, HSCB) are not presented in horrible English. Also, your opinion "that we do not need another translation..." is well, your opinion-not shared by everyone. If you don't like the NIV, well simply just don't buy it.

OK, basically you have revisited your stand on the KJVO issue and find that it is the best stand for you. I have no problem with this as I love the doctrine of Individual Soul Liberty. However, the bulk of the above quote really makes no sense to me. I think I know what you are trying to say but your words are not making your case.

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be mean but I gave a KJVO church a fair try and it's not the version of the Bible that that they use that turned me off. Rather, it was the attitudes, practices, the excessive legalism and the lack of meaningful scholarship that left me cold. If they just used the KJVO Bible and eliminated the legalism and easy beliveism, and threw a little raw meat into the salvation message I would have been happy to stay.

You refer to "unity sake". Whose unity and for whose sake are you refering to? I believe that the KJVO issue is more divisive to the body of believers than unifying, but what do I know, I read the NKJV.

Again, spoken with respect and intended to further discussion.

Tom

 

Jim, I believe modern versions began to move in in the late 70s as word went forth that some GOOD modern versions had been made. As for myself, the NASB was the only version I saw for awhile. In my younger days, my parents used the KJV because it was the only reliable English version they knew, but they gladly welcomed the NASB and NKJV. I had paid little attention to ANY Bible until shortly before my 1979 salvation.

From the mid-80s onward, the use of MVs has been steadily increasing across the English-speaking world, from what I can see. This has also brought the KJVO theory more into the light as well.

It took a while before the KJV supplanted the Geneva Bible as the fave version of the British in the 1600s, and it took a "boost' from the British govt. before that occurred. I don't see any one modern version coming to the fore now; I believe that each popular version now in use will continue to have its fans, & that includes the KJV. Who knows? We might even have a redux of the popularity of the GENEVA BIBLE.

I'm happy to see a trend beginning to focus more upon the MESSAGES of Scripture than just upon WHICH VERSION is being used!

 

Quote: "I'm happy to see a trend beginning to focus more upon the MESSAGES of Scripture than just upon WHICH VERSION is being used!"

My sentiments exactly. If it gets people into the word, I am all in favour. I can always correct false doctrine.

Cheers,

Jim