Featured When Did the KJVO Movement Start?

And the preceding paragraph:

"On the publication of these resolutions the greatest excitement spread through the denomination. Most of its journals were flooded with communications, pro and con, sermons were preached in a number of pulpits denouncing the movement, and public meetings were held in several cities to the same end, notable amongst them one at the Oliver Street Church, in New York, April 4th, 1850. This feeling was greatly increased by the two following facts : Mr. Carter, an intelligent layman, but neither a scholar nor an able thinker, having submitted a learned and elaborate paper as his minority report, which occupied an hour in the reading, and believing that it was inspired by an astute author in New York who had opposed the Society from the first, and was then a member of the Board of the American Bible Society, Dr. Cone and William H. Wyckoff, President and Secretary of the American and Foreign Bible Society, published a pamphlet over their names in defense of the action of the board, under the title, ' The Bible Translated.' The second fact arose from the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Script ures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings. Deacon William Colgate, the Treasurer, said that he approved of this suggestion, and that if Brethren Cone and Wyckoff would procure and issue such an edition as a personal enterprise, he, as a friend of revision, would personally pay the cost of the plates and printing. This was done, and in their preface tliey stated that by the aid of 'eminent scholars,' who had 'kindly co-operated and given their hearty approval to the proposed corrections,' they submitted their work, not for acceptance by the Society, but as a specimen of some changes which might be properly made, and that the plates would be presented to the Society if they were desired. This was sufficient to fan the fire to a huge flame ; much stormy and uncalled for severity was invoked, and a large attendance was called for at the annual meeting to 'rebuke this metropolitan power' and crush the movement forever."

It would seem that the opposition to the revision was not as opposed to it as they have been made to seem. It was there suggestion that a New Testament be published with the changes so they could see what they were and would then be able to agree or disagree with the changes.

 

Apparently someplace with much higher academic standards than where you (allegedly) learned.

Mr. Carter was against the revision. He made "the demand of Mr. Carter that those in favor of a revision of the English Scriptures should issue, in the form of a small edition of the New Testament, a specimen of the character of the emendations which they desired, in regard to obsolete words, to words and phrases that failed to express the meaning of the original Greek, or the addition of words by the translators, errors in grammar, profane expressions and sectarian renderings."

Context is everything. The Society dropped the resolution written 14 years earlier that when dealing with English speakers the Authorized Version was the official version of the Society.

They resolved to go forward with the revision.

The committee of five, appointed to discuss the matter and make recommendations to the Society as a whole, offered three recommendations. The first recommendation, to go forward with the revision, was the majority opinion, signed by 3 of the committee members. The other two could not agree between themselves (rather like the KJVOs of today) so each offered his own minority opinion.

"The third, from the pen of Warren Carter, Esq., was long and labored as an argument against altering the common version at all."

It was this same mister Carter who supported the publication of a New Testament showing the intended revisions.

No KJVO today would support such a position. QED

 

Well, sort of. I don't see KJVOism as a "movement." It includes Pentecostals, Protestants, Baptists, and even a Mormon or two.

It is much too broad to have the consistency necessary for it to be a "movement." It is simply a broad spectrum of people who have a similar view of a single doctrine, quite often rejecting any other similarities.

It is rather like calling Fundamentalism a "movement" when the only thing the adherents have in common is the 5 fundamentals of the faith. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe the 5 fundamentals but they certainly would not, for the most part, consider themselves part of the same "movement."

I think it is always dangerous to pigeon-hole people based on a single characteristic. When we make that error we are much less likely to listen to them and give their position an honest hearing, but rather dismissing them because we think we already have them "pegged."

 

Don't bother, John, you are just wasting your time. Prophet can't understand the simple statements Armitage wrote. He wants to see a "KJVO moverment" where none existed.

I don't know if he has a comprehension problem or an honesty problem, and it really doesn't matter which. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with him is like talking to the wall.

 

Here is an historical perspective of the American Bible Society and its position on the KJV.

It had nothing at all to do with KJVOism. It was Baptists insisting that "baptidzo" be translated as "dip" or "immerse" - which the baby sprinklers objected to. The Baptists insisted the new oriental translations must reflect the actual meaning of the word rather than how it was translated in the KJV.

"But as the Pedobaptists of different names were overwhelming in their number, and but a very few Baptist names appeared in the list of its officers, the thing had but a feeble hold on a large portion of our community, who I knew were much too remiss in their support of benevolent undertakings which were wholly managed by their own men."

(The Rise of the American and Foreign Bible Society By David Benedict, 1860 pages 213-216)

Those against the revision were not KJVO. They were baby sprinklers!