"KJV separates the men from the boys!"

[av1611jim]

Myth;
a traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

a parable or allegory

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

Ostensibly
intended for display
being such in appearence; plausible rather than demonstrably true or real

I really do not think "myth" is the correct word when used to describe KJVo.
KJVo is REAL. Whether you think it is false or not, it is still a REAL thing. The only definition which possibly could apply is the primary. See above.
To reword it one could say;
KJVo is a traditional story of plausible historical events that serves to unfold the worldview of a people (namely KJV believing Baptists).
This is the ONLY accurate definition when using "myth" if you please.
Anything other than this, I reject.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by LarryN:
"...such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." -Riley

OUCH! I wasn't aware that Riley disagreed with them.

So is it our understanding, that by believing in the inerrancy of the KJV, that these men would have by extrapolation also denied that other translations are God's Word as well?

To my mind, that is the deciding factor as to whether they can rightfully be termed KJVO in the modern sense: did these 'old conception' men believe that ONLY the KJV was the Word of God?

As the first of the non-KJV translations date to around the mid 1800s, as do these men, we can assume when they said the KJV alone was the inspired, inerrant, word of God in English they were comparing it to the other English bibles such as Webster's (1833), Murdock's NT (1851), the English Diaglot (1865), Young's translation (1898), and, of course, the Revised English Version (1881).

 

[robycop3]

Ostensibly intended for display
being such in appearence; plausible rather than demonstrably true or real

I believe this also describes the KJVO myth. There's no org calling itself KJVO. However, there ARE a number of people sharing a like set of false beliefs, all or in part, to the point that they often parrot each other. Most of those beliefs come from a series of books by a series of authors who, while not having any official or even known relationship of any kind, often copy each other's ideas. For example, J.J.Ray and Dr. D.O.Fuller were not known to have consulted each other, while neither was known to have consulted Dr. ben Wilkinson, from whom they both copied. Thus, their books, and the people who were actually silly enough to have BELIEVED them, created the current KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

Frank Betz: First: "KJVO" is not a "myth", unless you're in league to help create a myth.

Sorry, but it IS a myth. It's a group of false doctrines put together and believed, all or in part, by people who don't take the time to check out their veracity, or lack thereof, for themselves.

Second: KJVO is not attributed to any man, or group of men, except where either has culminated the "myth"

Wrong again. The current myth can be blamed upon the three men often named in various posts here. Virtually every author who's followed has used their material, including their obvious errors. How many average people, including KJVOs, have ever heard of W.B. Riley or other KJVOs of his time, let alone quoted from him?

We believe God when He said He preserved His Word: 100% Why don't you?

I do. Why do you try to limit Him to just one version of His word when that word doesn't support such an idea at all?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Myth;
a traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

a parable or allegory

a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

Ostensibly
intended for display
being such in appearence; plausible rather than demonstrably true or real

I really do not think "myth" is the correct word when used to describe KJVo.

You are right, Jim, “myth” is not the correct word when used to describe KJVo. The rules of this board do not allow us to use the correct word. That is why I call it a “Hairy Tick Infestation.”

 

[Ransom]

TCassidy asked:

Why do we ignore the Baptist KJVOs who predate Wilkinson?

Because you've never managed to name one. Your third-hand citation from Dollar of some anonymous "old conception" men whom W. B. Riley "believed" might have existed, is hearsay of the highest order.

In any case, KJV-onlyism as taught and practiced today can be easily traced to Benjamin Wilkinson and the SDAs, not these anonymous, mythological "old conception" gentlemen who disappear into obscurity.

 

[Major B]

because I am trying to be funny....

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Your third-hand citation from Dollar of some anonymous "old conception" men whom W. B. Riley "believed" might have existed, is hearsay of the highest order.

Three points.

1. I don't think Dr. Riley, one of the founding triumvirate of the Baptist Fundamentalists, was a liar. He said what he said and I believe him to be an honest man.

2. The cite of Riley cited Riley's book, "The Menace of Modernism" so it obviously was not "third-hand."

3. The secondary cite was Dr. Dollar quoting Riley and was given because Dr. Riley's book went out of print in 1917 and is only available in a very few libraries dedicated to preserving very old books.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Major B:
because I am trying to be funny....

Okay. I can accept that. You are trying. Very.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
As the first of the non-KJV translations date to around the mid 1800s,

In 1657, Theodore Haak's English translation of the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling was published.
John Wesley's English translation of the N. T. was first published in 1755. There was also the 1798 English N. T. translated from the Greek by Nathaniel Scarlett. There was also the 1808 Thomson's Bible [first complete English translation by an American--Charles Thomson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress]. There is also the 1842 revision of the KJV by several Biblical scholars including mostly Baptists
[Sixth edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding].

 

[robycop3]

Notice that in most of my references to KJVO I call it the CURRENT KJVO myth. I know there were other KJVOs before the current hooey was spread, but one hasta search long-N-hard to find any of their material. Seems Riley's works are the most common, but I doubt if 1 in 100 KJVOs recognize his name.

IMO, a good 95% of all KJVO material used today has come from the Wilkinson/Ray/Fuller line. Wilkinson, it seems, collated much of his material from earlier, little-known authors, with Ray, then Fuller, copying most of it. Ray, and especially Fuller, had the power of modern media available to help them sell books and advertise in virtually the entire English-using world.

BUT...HOW ACCURATE ARE THEIR POINTS? Close examination shows...NOT ACCURATE AT ALL. Let's look at just one..."Psalm 12:7 tells us God has preserved His words". This is a fairly old idea, and was found in some obscure commentaries about Scripture before Wilkinson's time. However, without doing any research we know of, Wilkinson set forth that idea in his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Again without any research, J.J.Ray copied Wilkinson's work into his book, God Wrote only One Bible. Research shows that such men as Matthew Henry and John Gill were of the idea that Ps. 12:7 was about PEOPLE, but perhaps the hardest-hitting evidence of all is the marginal note found in the AV 1611 that's been posted umpteen times on this forum. maybe those men could claim that material from Henry or Gill wasn't readily avaimable to them, but they cannot make such claims about the AV 1611. There's simply NO EXCUSE for their lack of research except that they'd each latched onto some idea that the KJV was "THE" English Bible, or, most likely in the cases of Ray and Fuller, saw a "cash cow" in the literary pasture and decided to milk it.(Wilkinson, I believe, was taking sides in a schism that had developed withinin his cult after Ellen Gould White died.)

This is just typical of the lack of research by KJVO proponents and authors. Yes, this is but ONE EXAMPLE of their presenting an idea based upon GUESSWORK because it "sounded good" and not because it carried any TRUTH. The whole KJVO myth ABOUNDS with such guesswork, fables, hearsay, imagination, gossip, fishing tales, and in some cases outright LYING AND DISHONESTY.

Yes, KVVO separates the MEN who've actually STUDIED the issue from the BOYS who use guesswork, and shoot into the dark, hoping to occasionally get something right.

 

[Keith M]

"The KJV separates the men from the boys," huh? It would be more appropriate to say "The KJVO myth separates the blind from the seeing!"

It amazes me that, after something has been disproven so many times, that there are still those who cannot "see" the truth...

 

[robycop3]

Actually, it separates the snow from the FLAKES...

 

[av1611jim]

"It amazes me that, after something has been disproven so many times, that there are still those who cannot "see" the truth..."

Yeah; I know what you mean Keith. Many in this world have said the same thing about Jesus.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Keith M:
"The KJV separates the men from the boys," huh? It would be more appropriate to say "The KJVO myth separates the blind from the seeing!"

It would be more appropriate to say, "The KJVO myth provides the opportunity for them to return to their vomit."