Beginnings of KJV-Only Movement?

Verrrrry interesting, Brother Ed! :smilewinkgrin::thumbsup:

 

I wish I had a couple copies from a few yrs ago... Maybe it was 2003... I resubscribed then, and saw a few things, and cancelled. (a little KJVOism, secondary seperation, and just the attitude...It was around the time The Passion movie came out, and PDL... Of course our church went to the movie, and we did 40 days of purpose... and we benefited... you should see the church now... It has ministries, and souls are being saved..)

It just does not have the same flavor as it did 25 yrs ago.

But you all maybe right.. maybe it has changed for the good.

Or maybe I have changed!

 

John, here is the statement from the SOTL on what they believe about the Bible...

The Holy Scriptures
WE BELIEVE the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19).
http://www.swordofthelord.com/whatwebelieve.htm

I am just curious... was this the belief when Mr. Rice was over it?

 

Here is an exerpt from a sermon the SOTL allowed to be published...
By Dr. James Earls
http://www.swordofthelord.com/archives/slaveryofthesaints.htm

I don’t know Greek and Hebrew, and I have a problem with English. I’m prejudiced to the old Authorized 1611 King James. These men come up with these new translations. A Bible out called the “Rapper’s Bible” is for black people only. I’m serious. I don’t need HIV-positive—I mean, the NIV. There’s no cure for either one! Give me another King James when I’ve gone through this one and this one has gone through me. Then I’ll need another one. But don’t rewrite it!

 

Or one by Tom Sexton...
http://www.swordofthelord.com/archives/OneOfThem.htm
I’m sitting over there thinking, It’s coming on me again! Breakfast is not worth this. I got mine and walked out the door and said, “I’m out of here, fellows!” I dropped that NIV in the garbage and said, “I’m through with this crowd. I’m of the other crowd.”

 

I am sure if I searched I could find more KJVO sentiment in the pages... but you get the idea.

 

If you are talking about the belief statement of the SOTL I agree...

I can even agree to the statement myself...
But I can also agree to the fact that the NIV is also the Bible.
(Would they state that?,,, doubt it. Since it seems the extreme IFBs have taken on KJVOism like it was an original fundamental, the paper would offend over half of the people that subscribe to it...)

That is why I am wondering if the paper had this statement of belief under Rice?
I know Rice wasn't KJVO... Although that is what he used.

But the statement comparing the NIV to HIV that was allowed to be published shows they are supporting to some extent the KJVO extreme.

The HIV statement is the type of statement an extreme KJVOist would make...

But I will say this about Smith.... He can't be all bad....
I found an article, where Ruckman is bad mouthing him!!! :thumbs:

 

Thomas Nelson has a campaign about once or twice a year and sells the NKJV for 1 dollar so we can give em away.:thumbs:

 

What kind of quality are they? I get some Bibles that arent' too expensive to keep in the media center to give away, but they aren't such hot quality either.

 

I'd say the writer of this quote is indeed prejudiced, personally. And it has little or nothing to do with the KJV! But to subtly equate HIV-positive with either "A Bible out called the "Rapper's Bible" is for black people only.", and/or "I don't need HIV-positive---I mean the NIV. There's no cure for either one!" is incipient racism, even if verbally unsaid, IMO.

It takes a lot to really get my dander up, usually. This Dr. James Earl, and the Sword of the Lord have just about succeeded in doing that, here.

Ed

 

Thanks for the info, Brother Tim. I'll PM you so as not to sidetrack this thread more than I already have.

God bless.

 

Brother Ed, James Earl is black himself, so I don't believe he meant to be racist here.

 

I don't think you, or anyone else has sidetracked this thread.

The beginnings of KJVOism is truly multifaceted, and one needs to look at all sides of how it began...

No doubt it began from pulpits, newspapers, books, and other media...
:thumbs:

 

Care to guess the year this statement was made?

"I am well apprised that some good, honest people will censure me, and, perhaps severly, for violating the last solemn warning that God gave us in the Bible, Rev. xxii, 18, 19, in which terrible woes are pronounced on the man who adds to the Word or takes from it. Of course, all these criticisms will simply come by way of ignorance. Many people are so ignorant that they actually look upon the English Bible as the original, and think every conceivable deflection from it to involve the party in the awful guilt of "adding to" ot "taking from" God's Word."

-- Rev. W. B. Godbey, A.M. in the Introduction to his translation of the New Testament (1902)​

 

Again, there's just no getting away from the fact that KJVO is entirely man-made and has absolutely no Scriptural support. It simply cannot be proven to be correct, either by Scriptural means or secular means. Understanding its man-made origin helps one see the light that KJVO has no light outsida PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

I still don't see very much origin for the current KJVO thingie outsida the Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman-Fuller-Riplinger party line. Seems that almost every other KJVO author has drawn something from this line.

 

I would direct your attention the word original ("look upon the English Bible as the original"). There are no accusations of corrupt underlying text, perversion by translation, or anything else; just a straightforward EBO claim of 'originality' (just as false then, as now).

 

Squire Robertsson: The current carriers of the KJV flame are using it as a flamethrower against otherwise good men and movements.

Yes...and a little knowledge, easily obtained by any English reader, pours water on that flame!