Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  Here's some skinny on the KJVO myth:

1.) It's entirely man-made, without one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. That fact alone makes it false.

2.) While the KJV is an excellent translation, it's only one of several, and is by no means perfect.

3.)  The current KJVO myth was derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book & spread by some dishinest authort. I shall post the details in a subsequent post.

4.) KJVO is a myth, due to its man-made origin and apocryphal details.

5.) The makers of the KJV were not KJVO! Please  carefully read their preface, "To The Reader", in the AV 1611.


  GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV in English now, any more than He was before the KJV was made. History shows that, once God began placing His word in English, He has kept it posted in the language style current for the time. In that respect, the KJV was the latest edition for the "Elizabethan/Jacobean" period. Since then, God has caused several updated English translations to be made.


  I find it much-easier and more-effective to present the Gospel to someone in our common language, contemporary American English. I've heard too many KJV preachers stop the thought train of their sermons to explain some archaism in the KJV, which removes the audience's focus from the gist of the message.


I shall be glad to answer anyone's questions about this matter & the above facts.

Edited by robycop3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  As promised, here's the origin of the current edition of the KJVO myth. I wrote this article about 10 years ago.


The Origin of the Current KJVO myth
By robycop3

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.  When the intercult squabble was settled, Dr. W apparently lost interest in that book.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism. (He never did.)

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine. (And no, I've not forgotten about W. B. Riley, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
  • Members

While i am by no means a KJVO, I will have to disagree with your view that the KJV is not the perfect Word of God.   I find it rather hard to see any modern translations from the Westcott and Hort family being anything but corrupt with their dealing of the Word of God,    II Corinthians 2:17.  You stated that no one believed in the KJVO position before Wilkinson which I believe to be true.  But at least two men believed in the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the Westcott-Hort Revised Text.  John Burgon who wrote a great defense for Mark16:9-20 and Herman Huskier.  This in the early days of the Revised Version.

If you wish you can call me a TRO. But while  I could never advise anyone to read from Nestle-Åland Texts, if one prefers strongly to read an NIV or NAS  I wouldn’t argue with them.

One things I do agree with KJVO on, is God did preserve His Word for all.  And while many KJVO will disagree with me here but I see the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Jubilee Bible just to mention a few  to also be the complete perfect Word as they have TR connection.

I admire greatly KJVO because they dare to take God at His Word in that He would preserve it for us, Psalms 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35.  When I see comments like those modern translations make about passages like Mark 16:9-20; and John 7:53-8:11; I John 5:7 it makes think of this statement of the devil;  “Yea, hath God said.”  Genesis 3:1. Not to mention with John 7:53-8:11 pretty sure it was fulfilling Jeremiah 17:13.

At very least the KJVO can rest in the fact that they drink, because of their desire the sincere milk of the Word, I Peter 2:2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 3/9/2019 at 5:24 AM, robycop3 said:

  GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV in English now, any more than He was before the KJV was made. History shows that, once God began placing His word in English, He has kept it posted in the language style current for the time. In that respect, the KJV was the latest edition for the "Elizabethan/Jacobean" period. Since then, God has caused several updated English translations to be made.

Moderator me: 
Robycop, I will remind you that this is a KJV site, and that all members are asked to respect that when posting. In light of that, I feel that this entire thread is in bad taste. Tread cautiously. 

Me me:
I don't think I'm 'KJVO' (because that view usually involves dual inspiration), but I am TRO. However, I am unaware of any modern translations that compare in quality and reliability. The 'updated' translations are based on faulty texts, with poor translation techniques (think dynamic equivalency) from far less learned scholars than were involved in the translation of the KJV.  How can God approve of translations that take away from His Word (wasn't there a curse about that somewhere?). 

Personally, I think that the English language is increasingly being dumbed down. It used to be a lot richer - a richness we've lost - and I see no reason to allow modern laziness as an excuse for not using the KJV. People may need explaining the first time round, but they will be wiser and richer for it in future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

   You asked me last year to not post any more on this site about KJVO, and so I haven't. However, I'll be glad to discuss KJVO on the "Baptist Board" site, or on Facebook, or on any other site someone may wish.


  Meanwhile, know ye that I'm an Indy Fundy Baptist, who doesn't follow ANY man-made doctrines of faith/worship, and whose congregation doesn't, either.

Edited by robycop3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

For those here, I also am on Baptist Board, Roby has a history of repeating claims about King Janes Only that he has been shown time and time again to be in error. 

for example Im fairly certain he has been shown by me already that the defense if the King James predated Wilkinson. 

Roby repeats talking points that people have already corrected or refuted. He has no interest in learning or growing his understanding of this issue but is just seeking to push an agenda. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

He has no interest in learning or growing his understanding of this issue but is just seeking to push an agenda. 

Perhaps, but on this forum he has been fairly good following the Administrator's request not to discuss it and has generally only replied to direct comments to him here. I can respect him for that.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

His original post on this thread will be a year old tomorrow, and was basically already dead with no responses until yesterday. It does seem a little pointless to revive it for the sole purpose of just killing it again. It's dead, let it be dead, and let the dead bury their dead.

Where there is no fuel, the fire goeth out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)

  • Create New...