Textual/version stance

[speerjp1]

Young Earth Creationism has been proven to be a purely modern view, as well.

As has the idea of once saved, always saved.

Same with separation.


Satan has used the lie of "it's a new phenomenon" successfully time after time to discredit Bible-based doctrines and teachings. The target of these lies is seldom the lost, but instead he targets God's children in the hopes that we will back away from Biblical Godly living.

Bible-based Christianity has always been found among relatively few, even in the greatest moves of God.

[John81]

Young Earth Creationism has been proven to be a purely modern view, as well.

As has the idea of once saved, always saved.

Same with separation.


Satan has used the lie of "it's a new phenomenon" successfully time after time to discredit Bible-based doctrines and teachings. The target of these lies is seldom the lost, but instead he targets God's children in the hopes that we will back away from Biblical Godly living.

Bible-based Christianity has always been found among relatively few, even in the greatest moves of God.

I understand the point you are trying to make but the examples you used are not good ones. There is abundante proof that Christians in times past believed in the Young Earth Creation. The concept of "once saved, always saved" has a long history as well, as does separation.

There is too much historical evidence for all three of these for anyone to claim to have proof they are new.

Perhaps a better example might be the idea of the Pre-trib Rapture. Many have tried to prove this is a modern idea dating to Darby. While proof exists that the Pre-trib Rapture was believed among early Christians, it's much harder for the average person to find out about. With the damage the Catholic Church brought about and the abundance of false teaching that came forth, the pre-trib rapture belief was out of the "mainstream" for a number of centures while various theories were more prominent.

On the surface, it can be made to appear as if the pre-trip rapture idea originated with Darby. And, sure enough, many people see this, believe it and dismiss the idea of a pre-trib rapture even though if they actually researched further they could discover these to be false.

[speerjp1]

I understand the point you are trying to make but the examples you used are not good ones. There is abundante proof that Christians in times past believed in the Young Earth Creation. The concept of "once saved, always saved" has a long history as well, as does separation.

There is too much historical evidence for all three of these for anyone to claim to have proof they are new.

Perhaps a better example might be the idea of the Pre-trib Rapture. Many have tried to prove this is a modern idea dating to Darby. While proof exists that the Pre-trib Rapture was believed among early Christians, it's much harder for the average person to find out about. With the damage the Catholic Church brought about and the abundance of false teaching that came forth, the pre-trib rapture belief was out of the "mainstream" for a number of centures while various theories were more prominent.

On the surface, it can be made to appear as if the pre-trip rapture idea originated with Darby. And, sure enough, many people see this, believe it and dismiss the idea of a pre-trib rapture even though if they actually researched further they could discover these to be false.

It's all the same.

The argument that it is a "new idea" is what was presented. I simply showed the weakness of that assertion.

[John81]

I'm sorry, but I can't see it.

In no way am I saying there were not any KJVO folks prior to the 1930s or whatever date someone mentioned, but who were they? Where are their KJVO writings?

While the evidence that Christians have always practiced separation is clear in the historical record, the same doesn't hold for KJVO; at least to my current knowledge.

[speerjp1]

...at least to my current knowledge.

That is what this whole argument is being based on, so it is pretty much useless.

History is obviously tainted and the books that seek to revise history are abundant.

I'll just go write a book that shows the historical significance of the KJVO position beginning in 1611 and then you will have different current knowledge.



This purely academic bickering over God's word has been proven time and time again to be worthless vanity because of the insertion of man's version of history, literature, science, and philosophy.

I'll digress.

[John81]

Does this mean there is no real way to outright prove one position or another?

I'm a King James man, that's what I read every day and night. I have faith in God that He has led me to the KJB.

[Salyan]

Wow... this thread has certainly taken some interesting turns. I never realized a poll could get so confusing!

For the record, I'm a #2, too.

[Annie]

That is what this whole argument is being based on, so it is pretty much useless.

History is obviously tainted and the books that seek to revise history are abundant.

I'll just go write a book that shows the historical significance of the KJVO position beginning in 1611 and then you will have different current knowledge.



This purely academic bickering over God's word has been proven time and time again to be worthless vanity because of the insertion of man's version of history, literature, science, and philosophy.

I'll digress.

I'll save you the time of writing that book... Here are the names of men before the twentieth century that knew people who were KJVO. (I'm sure there were more.) All of them are documented in the book I'm reading. These KJVO people were not connected with the modern movement, though, in that their ideas were not passed along to twentieth century men. They wrote no books, and influenced no one that we would associate with the 20th century KJVO movement.

"Henry Alford (1810-1871), noted English New Testament scholar and a member of the English Revised Version translation committee, mentions, in passing, the belief of some people whom he knew that the KJV was infallible. In his comments on Hebrews 10:23, he remarks,
'We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through the centuries. The word faith, given here by the A.V. instead of hope--breaking up the beautiful triad of verses 22, 23, 24--faith, hope, love,--was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope being accordingly the rendering of all English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God.'" (This material is quoted directly from the book Only One Bible? by Beacham and Bauder.)

Other men mentioned as ones that faced opposition from KJVO people are Spencer Cone (1785-1855), Thomas Armitage (1819-1896), and Basil Manly Jr. (1825-1892).

[speerjp1]

I'll save you the time of writing that book... Here are the names of men before the twentieth century that knew people who were KJVO. (I'm sure there were more.) All of them are documented in the book I'm reading. These KJVO people were not connected with the modern movement, though, in that their ideas were not passed along to twentieth century men. They wrote no books, and influenced no one that we would associate with the 20th century KJVO movement.

"Henry Alford (1810-1871), noted English New Testament scholar and a member of the English Revised Version translation committee, mentions, in passing, the belief of some people whom he knew that the KJV was infallible. In his comments on Hebrews 10:23, he remarks,
'We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through the centuries. The word faith, given here by the A.V. instead of hope--breaking up the beautiful triad of verses 22, 23, 24--faith, hope, love,--was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope being accordingly the rendering of all English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God.'" (This material is quoted directly from the book Only One Bible? by Beacham and Bauder.)

Other men mentioned as ones that faced opposition from KJVO people are Spencer Cone (1785-1855), Thomas Armitage (1819-1896), and Basil Manly Jr. (1825-1892).

You haven't saved me any time yet. :lol

Your persistence in quoting the opinions of men who thought they knew better than the scholars who translated the KJV only perpetuates my belief that we're getting quite a one-sided "history."

Besides that, the fact that all these men took issue with KJV only-ism only goes to show that the original premise of the book you're reading is fallacious in itself.

[speerjp1]

Does this mean there is no real way to outright prove one position or another?

Not when KJVO is consistently being lumped in with Bible doctrines.

KJVO is not a doctrine, but God preserving his word is.

We shouldn't be discussing KJVO as a doctrine that needs to be defended with verses, but a choice with valid historical and textual backing.

If someone chooses to read and follow after perversions of God's word, then so be it.

But when the KJV has consistently been shown to be the most reliable translation from the most reliable source, the choice should be obvious to all believers who honestly want to have a copy of God's word.

[LindaR]

Not when KJVO is consistently being lumped in with Bible doctrines.

KJVO is not a doctrine, but God preserving his word is.

We shouldn't be discussing KJVO as a doctrine that needs to be defended with verses, but a choice with valid historical and textual backing.

If someone chooses to read and follow after perversions of God's word, then so be it.

But when the KJV has consistently been shown to be the most reliable translation from the most reliable source, the choice should be obvious to all believers who honestly want to have a copy of God's word.

:goodpost:

[Guest Guest]

Ditto! Double ditto...and, how many dittos it takes!

candlelight

[Marcus2Israel]

I picked #2.

[Guest Guest]

I'm reading a book now on this very topic (the history of the KJVO movement). It explores where the movement originated: in a book published in 1930 by Seventh Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated), which was discovered and made popular in 1955 by James Jasper Ray, who quoted extensively from Wilkinson's book in his own work God Wrote Only One Bible. The views of Wilkinson and Ray were carried on and propagated by David Otis Fuller, who died in the late '80s. As you all probably already know, Fuller wrote God Wrote Only One Bible and Which Bible, half of which is an edited reprint of Wilkinson's book...(interesting side note: Fuller's anxiousness to conceal Wilkinson's religious orientation is revealed by the fact that he deleted Wilkinson's footnote references to the writings of Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White...disingenuous at best, surely!). A lot more could be said about Fuller. Fuller's contemporary Peter S. Ruckman was another man influenced directly by the writings of Wilkinson and Ray, going so far in denouncing conservative scholars Warfield and Robertson that he lumps them together with men like Adolf Hitler. :puzzled: His first book The Bible Babel unmistakably relies heavily on Ray's God Wrote Only One Bible (a book which, remember, quoted heavily the writings of Seventh Day Adventist Wilkinson).

In summary, the generations of the KJVO movement are these: 1) Wilkinson (1930s); 2) Ray (1950s); 3) Fuller and Ruckman (1970s to present). Other notable followers include Jack Chick, D.A. Waite, E.L. Bynum, Jack Hyles, David Cloud, and Gail Riplinger. The KJVO position, despite what some would like to believe, is not the position of historic fundamentalism.

I have found this book quite interesting. I'm learning a lot. I'm sure some of you have heard negative things about it, which is understandable. But if anyone is interested, the title is One Bible Only? edited by Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder. It was published by Kregel Publications in 2001.

In response to this post...

Why does it matter if the KJVO movement started with a Seventh-Day Adventist??

John Wycliffe was a Catholic, yet he translated the first Bible into English.

Martin Luther never left the Catholic church, yet we still applaud him for his efforts and sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."

William Tyndale never left the Catholic church, but is never questioned as far as his Bible translation.

Adoniram Judson was a Congregationalist (Anglican!) for a good part of his life, yet is hailed as one of the great heroes of the faith.

George Whitfield was an Anglican!

Billy Sunday was a Presbyterian!

Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus was a Catholic as well!

If you're going to disallow Wilkerson's writings, then you need to throw these men out as well. No, we do not hold with much of the doctrines of the SDA movement, but that doesn't make all of his writings faulty.

Up until around 1880, there was no need to argue about the superiority: the King James was all there was. In fact, the KJB was the newest version around! Therefore, when the Revised Version came along around 1881. Many at the time were unaware of the corruption that had seeped into this work through the works of Westcott and Hort; therefore, not having any real precedent for a King James only stance, they accepted the RV without much ado.

It soon came to light, however, that Satan's hand had been instrumental in the preparation and publishing of the new versions. With the inclusion of the Alexandrian manuscript family, the corruption in the new versions was manifest. Thus, Wilkerson, messed up on doctrine though he was, realized the importance of a Final Authority (something most people today ignore, even in Fundamental Christianity) and penned his work in defense of God's Word in English.

There are hundreds of arguments for the authority and perfection of the King James Bible, but it was important that the issue of Wilkerson's work be addressed here. Truth doesn't care who publishes her; truth is truth, whether it be from the mouth of an SDA, a Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican or Baptist. Some people need to grasp that concept: God uses people that Baptists wouldn't!!

[Annie]

Why does it matter if the KJVO movement started with a Seventh-Day Adventist??

Did I say it mattered? I only noted the fact, without any more comment. The problem I had is with Fuller, who, in writing books teaching and advocating the KJVO position, covered up Wilkinson's SDA beliefs. Evidently it mattered to him, and he (a writer who unbelievably gained the trust of KJVO advocates) was purposely dishonest in his writing.

John Wycliffe was a Catholic, yet he translated the first Bible into English.

Martin Luther never left the Catholic church, yet we still applaud him for his efforts and sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."

William Tyndale never left the Catholic church, but is never questioned as far as his Bible translation.

Adoniram Judson was a Congregationalist (Anglican!) for a good part of his life, yet is hailed as one of the great heroes of the faith.

George Whitfield was an Anglican!

Billy Sunday was a Presbyterian!

Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus was a Catholic as well!

If you're going to disallow Wilkerson's writings, then you need to throw these men out as well. No, we do not hold with much of the doctrines of the SDA movement, but that doesn't make all of his writings faulty.

I don't disallow Wilkinson's writings because he was a SDA any more than I disallow pants on women because the trend was started by feminists. Evidently you misunderstood me. If I disallow his writings (which I cannot honestly do, not having read them), it is because they are full of demonstrable errors, and I do not agree with his position.

Up until around 1880, there was no need to argue about the superiority: the King James was all there was. In fact, the KJB was the newest version around! Therefore, when the Revised Version came along around 1881. Many at the time were unaware of the corruption that had seeped into this work through the works of Westcott and Hort; therefore, not having any real precedent for a King James only stance, they accepted the RV without much ado.

It soon came to light, however, that Satan's hand had been instrumental in the preparation and publishing of the new versions. With the inclusion of the Alexandrian manuscript family, the corruption in the new versions was manifest. Thus, Wilkerson, messed up on doctrine though he was, realized the importance of a Final Authority (something most people today ignore, even in Fundamental Christianity) and penned his work in defense of God's Word in English.

I have not read Wilkinson's work; have you, or are you simply repeating what you've been told?

There are hundreds of arguments for the authority and perfection of the King James Bible, but it was important that the issue of Wilkerson's work be addressed here. Truth doesn't care who publishes her; truth is truth, whether it be from the mouth of an SDA, a Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican or Baptist. Some people need to grasp that concept: God uses people that Baptists wouldn't!!

I'd love to hear his work addressed. You seem to be familiar with it. Go ahead! :smile