1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Was KJVOism uncontested in the old days?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Nov 20, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    On another board, I've been discussing the antiquity of the KJVO myth, maintaining that the MODERN myth was shaped by the writings of Benjamin Wilkinson as copied and added to by Ray and Fuller. However, I acknowledge that if one looked long & hard enough, he/she could likely dig up some KJVO commentary from 1612.

    Yes, there was opposition to KJVO in the old days also. In this discussion, a former member here called my attention to The menace of Modernism(1917) by W.B. Riley. he meant it to be a pro-KJVO comment, but in what little chance I've had to read this book, I found the following on P.13:

    I understand Riley was an early Fundamentalist, and that if he held this view that long ago, that the KJVO myth has been a more modern invader of Fundamentalism. (We've already mentioned Dr. Clearwaters' view which was written later.)
     
    #1 robycop3, Nov 20, 2004
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While KJVonlies claim early support, it is almost non-existant. A cryptic reference here and there until the Seventh Day Adventists perfected it (pun intended).

    Riley at First Baptist Minneapolis was the leading voice of Fundamentalism in 1910-1945. He would have fought this divisive "doctrine" (no scriptural support ever offered by the KJVo so it is hard for me to call it a doctrine) had it existed.

    It didn't. As soon as it blossomed into the sect it is today (circa 1970 and the rise of Ruckman), historic fundamentalists rose up to fight it.

    And still do. It was never "uncontested"; and true understanding of the Word has always fought against its errors.
     
    #2 Dr. Bob, Nov 20, 2004
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The main person with whom I've been discussing this with is an old acquaintance of yours, Dr. Bob, who used to be a member here and himself holds a doctorate, so you prolly know to whom I'm referring. He and several others in several other discussions keep telling me that the KJVO doctrine is quite old...but try as I may, I cannot find any evidence this doctrine was extensively known to the general public, either here or in Great Britain before 1930. I can't find that very many people actually BELIEVED it till fairly recent times.

    I'm trying to be fair to the KJVO side, but I really can't find much advocacy for their doctrine backin the "old days". this is yet another blow against their doctrine because had it come from GOD, it would've at least been hinted at in prophecy, and would've become well-known almost immediately after the AV was published.
     
    #3 robycop3, Nov 20, 2004
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are only going back to the mid to early 20th century. Obviously, you cannot go too far back because later version would be an MV. [​IMG]
     
    #4 Phillip, Nov 20, 2004
  5. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    The first time I heard about KJVO was about 1974. Those folks started causing problems in the Christian community.
     
    #5 gb93433, Nov 20, 2004
  6. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dumb old me. I did'nt know it was a serious issue until I became a member of this board.
     
    #6 Plain Old Bill, Nov 21, 2004
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They HAVE to teach it is old to give credibility to their position. Some pull up a writing of some dear preacher who said the "KJV was the Word of God" and then claim this is "onlyism".

    We've shown the roots in Seventh Day Adventist teaching, how it came in the next generation to David Otis Fuller (prominent GARBC pastor) and then picked up here and there by fringe groups like Ruckman.

    It became a test of faith for them, so if you were to be in their "club", you HAD to teach this virulent message. There is NO historic basis - you are right - and, of course of greater concern, NO verse of scripture that teaches "onlyism" (of any translation, that is not the issue). Not a verse.

    So it is not a false "doctrine", since "doctrine" must be based on Scripture. It is a theory without fact, but those who want to believe don't need fact; they have faith.

    And obviously you've met some!! :eek:
     
    #7 Dr. Bob, Nov 21, 2004
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don't be so hard on yourself.
    Keep reading and learn more! [​IMG]

    HankD
     
    #8 HankD, Nov 21, 2004
  9. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought the Puritans used the Geneva Bible.
     
    #9 Plain Old Bill, Nov 24, 2004
  10. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they did. The Puritans of England, as well as many other religious groups, refused to use the AV1611 when it was released. The crown was so bothered by the criticism against the KJV that it made illegal to use any other bible version except for the KJV, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The Puritans continued to use the Geneva, which they had smuggled in and hidden. Ultimately, the persecution against the puritans was so great that they decided to leave England and establish a colony in the New World. Good thing, too, or else we'd all be speaking Dutch.
     
    #10 Johnv, Nov 24, 2004
  11. november_echo

    november_echo New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi! i'm a new member of this site, just want to get into the topic of using KJV as the only bible in the church... Can u help me understand the discussions posted so that i can participate? is the group trying to say that we can use any translation in teaching the fundamental doctrines of baptists? did i understood the postings right? thanks and mre power! i'll be in touch... i'll send my views after i better understand the postings... pls 4give me...
     
    #11 november_echo, Nov 24, 2004
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are two basic views, echo -

    One group believe MANY English translations are good and accurate and could be used. Some prefer to use just one (like the KJV or the NASB), but recognize all are the Word of God, and treat all with equal respect.

    The other group believes ONLY the King James is inspired for English readers today and ALL other translations are not as good. Some say all others are "perversions" or "satanic", etc.

    Both groups know that there are man-centered Bibles that are NOT accurate and NOT the word of God (Living Bible is not a bible; New World Bible is intentional perversion by Jehovah's Witness cult, etc).

    Write if you have more questions.
     
    #12 Dr. Bob, Nov 25, 2004
  13. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello, Echo!

    First, most of us here have no objection to anyone's using only one Bible version by personal preference. The problem arises when someone who uses only a certain version tells someone else who's made a different choice of version(s) that his or her choice was wrong. The theory that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is a man-made doctrine, is NOT supported whatsoever by Scripture in the KJV itself, and is or fairly recent origin.

    Dr. Bob has nicely summed up the current debate.

    In this thread, I began by posting a comment in a book written by W.B. Riley, one of the "founding fathers" of Fundamentalism. It appears that what little support there was for the idea of KJVOism was countered whenever it appeared. But KJVOism didn't really "get off the ground" until the 1960s.

    Can you tell us if such a dispute has arisen among those whose only language is Tagalog & therefore can read only Tagalog-language Bibles?

    Nice "meeting" you electronically!

    In Christ,

    Cranston
     
    #13 robycop3, Nov 25, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...