The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

createdtoworship · Mar 12, 2019

there are many problems with modern translations, and I am still waiting for someone to answer the "sinaiticus forgery question."

Dr. Jack · Mar 12, 2019

robycop3 said:
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.

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.

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.

You gest of what you wrote above (the OP) is that 1) the KJVOnly position did not exist prior to 1930, and 2) the KJVOnly position came out of the SDA movement.

I offer you an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Cassidy's work, (now retired), from the following link:

Textual Criticism Fact and Fiction - Thomas Cassidy

"My education started along similar lines, attending Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a school originally founded by the late great W. B. Riley (as Northwestern Baptist Seminary), and continued by a former Northern Baptist pastor, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, who was one of the first to come out of the old convention and establish an independent church. W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you. Dr. Riley then erroneously states the AV inerrancy position by saying on page 13, "To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version...is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves..." No one, that I am aware of, is claiming inerrancy for men, but only for the words of God. This position is, I believe, a straw man, attempting to ascribe to us something we do not believe, and then condemn us for believing what they claim we believe. I believe the AV is vested with derivative inspiration, due to its having been carefully translated from the inspired words of the original language texts contained in the Traditional Masoretic (Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible, as edited by Rabbi Abraham Ben Chayyim), and the Traditional Greek (Byzantine or TR) text. I consider the Stuttgartensia and Alexandrian (WH) texts, from which all modern bibles are translated, to be corrupt. This is, I believe, easily demonstrated by the egregious errors contained in the versions translated from them. If we believe the AV has derivative inspiration, we must remember, where inspiration (even derivative inspiration) goes, inerrancy (also derivative) must, of logical necessity, follow. If inerrancy does not follow inspiration, we produce the absurdity of an "inspired" error! I believe the AV is inspired and inerrant because the preserved original language manuscripts from which it is derived are both inspired and inerrant, when correctly copied, which virtually all of the textual evidence suggests is assuredly the case. The charge of errors in the AV is an unfounded charge. The so-called errors are usually the result of an insufficient knowledge of the etymology of the English words used by the translators. Just a little knowledge of the English language clears up a great number of these so-called errors. There are only about 268 words in the A.V. that are not currently used in English (wot, wist, etc), or have changed meaning (Easter referred to the pagan celebrations clustered around the vernal equinox in 1611, roughly the same time as the Jewish Passover, but now refers either to Resurrection Sunday, or a secular holiday involving an egg laying rabbit(?)). I believe it is easier (and safer) to educate God's people as to the changes in English than to tamper with the Bible.

So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.

Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born! The challenge of one scoffer to "Name one person who believed in the inspiration or inerrancy of the King James Version prior to 1950 and I'll send you $1000", has just been answered (please send the money to me at the address in the front of this book!)."

"The Menace of Modernism" was published in 1913, and as Dr. Cassidy wrote, it was an "old conception" when this book was published.

You were saying?

Dr. Jack · Mar 12, 2019

miamited said:
However, two things that I will concede. First, without the original, we can't really be sure that we have any of the words of the new covenant Scriptures correct other than in their agreement with one another.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Dr. Jack · Mar 12, 2019

Hello Ted,

Rather than deal with all of the comment, please allow me to reply to this single statement.

In the days of our Lord, not a single scroll of Scripture was original; yet, Jesus never questioned their authenticity. In the days of the early church, copies of Paul's letters had already been circulating throughout the region north of the Mediterranean, yet Paul gives no mention that the copies of his epistles were not authentic.

No, we do not have the originals, but the cohesiveness of the Byzantine texts is remarkable. There is no written work that has the supporting text under it, as does the Scripture.

What do you think?

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

robycop3 said:
Well, actually, Sir, the NKJV IS a new translation, using the same mss. the old KJV used. And ACCURACY is more-important than making a translation read smoothly. The KJV contains its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

God causes His word to appear in CURRENT languages. After all, 'tis HE who created all languages & who causes/allows all changes in a language.

Sir, could you please tell me, If you were in Greece and wanted to say "Easter", what Greek word would you use?

GreekOrthodox · Mar 13, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Sir, could you please tell me, If you were in Greece and wanted to say "Easter", what Greek word would you use?

We call it Pascha

(From the Agape Vespers service held on Paschal Sunday)
Στιχηρὰ τοῦ Πάσχα. Ἦχος πλ. αʹ.

Πάσχα ἱερὸν ἡµῖν σήµερον ἀναδέδεικται· Πάσχα καινόν, Ἅγιον· Πάσχα µυστικόν· Πάσχα πανσεβάσµιον· Πάσχα Χριστὸς ὁ λυτρωτής. Πάσχα ἄµωµον· Πάσχα µέγα· Πάσχα τῶν πιστῶν· Πάσχα τὸ πύλας ἡµῖν τοῦ Παραδείσου ἀνοῖξαν· Πάσχα, πάντας ἁγιάζον πιστούς.

Stichera of Pascha. Mode pl. 1.

Today a sacred Pascha has been revealed to us; a Pascha new and holy, a Pascha mystical, a Pascha all-venerable, Pascha, the Redeemer Christ himself; a Pascha that is blameless, a Pascha that is great, a Pascha of believers, a Pascha that has opened for us the gates of Paradise, a Pascha that sanctifies believers all.

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

GreekOrthodox said:
We call it Pascha

(From the Agape Vespers service held on Paschal Sunday)
Στιχηρὰ τοῦ Πάσχα. Ἦχος πλ. αʹ.

Πάσχα ἱερὸν ἡµῖν σήµερον ἀναδέδεικται· Πάσχα καινόν, Ἅγιον· Πάσχα µυστικόν· Πάσχα πανσεβάσµιον· Πάσχα Χριστὸς ὁ λυτρωτής. Πάσχα ἄµωµον· Πάσχα µέγα· Πάσχα τῶν πιστῶν· Πάσχα τὸ πύλας ἡµῖν τοῦ Παραδείσου ἀνοῖξαν· Πάσχα, πάντας ἁγιάζον πιστούς.

Stichera of Pascha. Mode pl. 1.

Today a sacred Pascha has been revealed to us; a Pascha new and holy, a Pascha mystical, a Pascha all-venerable, Pascha, the Redeemer Christ himself; a Pascha that is blameless, a Pascha that is great, a Pascha of believers, a Pascha that has opened for us the gates of Paradise, a Pascha that sanctifies believers all.

Hello GreekOrthodox, Isn't it amazing? Every Greek text I know of has the word Πασχα (Pascha) in Acts 12:4. The KJV translators rendered the word Πασχα into the English "Easter", yet they supposedly did it wrong.

miamited · Mar 13, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Hello Ted,

Rather than deal with all of the comment, please allow me to reply to this single statement.

In the days of our Lord, not a single scroll of Scripture was original; yet, Jesus never questioned their authenticity. In the days of the early church, copies of Paul's letters had already been circulating throughout the region north of the Mediterranean, yet Paul gives no mention that the copies of his epistles were not authentic.

No, we do not have the originals, but the cohesiveness of the Byzantine texts is remarkable. There is no written work that has the supporting text under it, as does the Scripture.

What do you think?

Hi jack,

I agree with all that you've said and I've made that argument myself to those who think that there are errors in the old covenant. However, most of the KJVO's don't really have a lot of argument against what is found in the old covenant. The majority of their complaints are regarding the new covenant. I think that most theologians agree that the old covenant was pretty well settled during the intertestimental period.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

StrivingFollower · Mar 13, 2019

What's most special about the KJV is that sometimes it seems to flow more poetically than the other versions. It's possible that the odd order of old english is more similar to ancient Hebrew. But the most important thing about scripture is not the poetic flow, it's does the meaning reach you. Sometimes KJV reaches me well, but other times the very different language clouds the message for me.

createdtoworship · Mar 13, 2019

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

miamited said:
Hi jack,

I agree with all that you've said and I've made that argument myself to those who think that there are errors in the old covenant. However, most of the KJVO's don't really have a lot of argument against what is found in the old covenant. The majority of their complaints are regarding the new covenant. I think that most theologians agree that the old covenant was pretty well settled during the intertestimental period.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thanks for your reply Ted, but, your answer begs a few questions:

1) Why would you present an argument that you yourself have an answer to?
2) Could you be more specific with the "complaints" KJVOnlyists have with the NC?
3) When you posted some of the references regarding the quotations of church fathers, and information regarding MS evidence for the long ending of Mark and the text of 1 John 5:7, do you believe all of the MS evidence is credible?

W2L · Mar 13, 2019

High Fidelity said:
The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.

It's pathetic, frankly.

It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.

A bit harsh.

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

gradyll said:
View attachment 252835

Hello Grady,
One of the arguments against the KJVONLY position is that we are using the KJV as the standard. The problem however (with this argument), is that the KJB is only representative of the Greek text that supports it. Hence, the real question is Why do the critical texts not have the same text?

GreekOrthodox · Mar 13, 2019

W2L said:
A bit harsh.

Why is that harsh? It is just a translation of many.

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

High Fidelity said:
The irony is that KJVO folks use the KJV as the standard and not the original texts.

It's pathetic, frankly.

It's a translation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hello High Fidelity,
A quick question for you ... Do you know of even a single "critical" translation that is based on the "originals"?

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

GreekOrthodox said:
Why is that harsh? It is just a translation of many.

I believe the point W2L is making is that that statement infers, or insinuates that there is at least one "critical" translation that IS based on the "originals". (Which I'm assuming we're all educated enough to know otherwise.) W2L may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

W2L · Mar 13, 2019

GreekOrthodox said:
Why is that harsh? It is just a translation of many.

yes, but why call it pathetic? Sounds harsh, imo

createdtoworship · Mar 13, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Hello Grady,
One of the arguments against the KJVONLY position is that we are using the KJV as the standard. The problem however (with this argument), is that the KJB is only representative of the Greek text that supports it. Hence, the real question is Why do the critical texts not have the same text?

I don't make that argument. And the OP does not make that argument. For me it appears to be a strawman argument against KJV users in general. I would venture to say the majority of KJV users realize it's just a translation. Or at very least, equal amounts of people who view the modern manuscripts as just translations view the KJV as a translation. I believe it comes from a lack of understanding that the Bible was originally autographed in another language, and a naive view of inspiration. God obviously cannot inspire numerous contradicting manuscripts as I have posted.

Dr. Jack · Mar 13, 2019

gradyll said:
I don't make that argument. And the OP does not make that argument. For me it appears to be a strawman argument against KJV users in general. I would venture to say the majority of KJV users realize it's just a translation. Or at very least, equal amounts of people who view the modern manuscripts as just translations view the KJV as a translation. I believe it comes from a lack of understanding that the Bible was originally autographed in another language, and a naive view of inspiration. God obviously cannot inspire numerous contradicting manuscripts as I have posted. View attachment 252840

I think there is a huge misunderstanding of inspiration in general.

I think the biggest misconception is that the writers were "inspired". I don't think that is correct. I believe the Scriptures teach that the "words" themselves are inspired. If you wish to know why I have such a position, I would be happy to give a brief (sort of) answer.

miamited · Mar 13, 2019

Dr. Jack said:
Thanks for your reply Ted, but, your answer begs a few questions:

1) Why would you present an argument that you yourself have an answer to?
2) Could you be more specific with the "complaints" KJVOnlyists have with the NC?
3) When you posted some of the references regarding the quotations of church fathers, and information regarding MS evidence for the long ending of Mark and the text of 1 John 5:7, do you believe all of the MS evidence is credible?

Hi jack,

No, I'm not going to go into all that detail. If you're a KJVO'er, then you know what the issues are. If you don't, then that's just as good and we can go with my understanding of why God gave unto mankind His Scriptures and leave it at that. That is, that God gave us His Scriptures to know Him. To know and understand all that He has done and all that He is doing. To know that He has provided a way that we might return to righteousness in His sight through the sacrifice of His Son that the Scriptures declare was prepared before the foundations of the world were set in place. So, none of this is a surprise to God, but He wants us to love Him and to understand His purpose in creating us. That He might have an eternal relationship with a creature of His creating that He loves. He will have that relationship after His judgment upon the earth.

The Scriptures were written that we might know that and come to understand and know and love Him who has created all things. So long as any good translation of His Scriptures gives us that understanding and knowledge, then that translation is a good translation for the purposes for which God gave unto mankind His Scriptures. I'm not interested in arguing over this word or that word that a particular translator may have chosen to use to translate whatever we find to be the best reasonable copies. I'm not interested in arguing over this translation is missing this verse or that one another verse. I have read a good half dozen different translations and so far, while I'm not particularly fond of some and some do go further than I would allow, I have yet to find a one that doesn't succeed in accomplishing the task for which God sent unto mankind His words.

Now, you or someone else may be particularly attracted to the KJ translation and that's fine with me. However, don't just be readers and hearers of the Scriptures, but take what they say, with all the different words and few missing verses and do what they tell you to do!

I'll ask you, have you found a translation that doesn't confirm that God has made all things? Have you found a translation that doesn't seem to be clear that man is a sinner? Have you found a translation that doesn't explain clearly what God's offer is to forgive us our sin? Have you found any translation that doesn't make it absolutely perfectly clear that Jesus is that answer? Have you found any translation that doesn't tell you, that in the end, God is going to call all mankind to account and that there will be a judgment of all men? Have you found any translation that doesn't make it clear to you that if anyone's name is not found in the Lamb's book of Life, they will not escape God's wrath?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Ted

Active Member

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Ted

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency