APRIL 9 STATEMENT FROM THE AUTHOR:
Before you comment on this post (especially if you’re an angry KJVO advocate),
please read the second post which provides some clarification.
This Easter, we had some visitors who at one time attended a KJV Only church nearby. One of the visitors asked an elder, “Why do you have NIV Bibles in the racks?” After listening to our elder explain our position on the Bible in translation, I commented, “I would have told him that they’re in the racks because it is more convenient than having them drop from the ceiling!”
My father is a King James Only guy, and I respect him. The church I was ordained in uses only the KJV. Many of my friends are King James Only or King James Preferred. I’ve shared some thoughts on this issue in comments through the site and on the King James Only Controversy site, but I thought I would share the historical reasons that I believe undergird some of what is circulated as King James Onlyism – a somewhat superficial view that deals with original texts and actual history only secondarily that is really distinct from the views held by my father and some of his colleagues.
I must first outline somewhat why I do not reject the King James Version because there are people who argue this way and I do not want to create more confusion.
Not Using the KJV Has Nothing to do with Archaic Language
The KJV’s language does not bother me, especially since it is intentionally archaic. It was archaic in its own day because the use of Latin grammar was thought to be the best way to communicate the weight and authority of the 1,500 years of Christian history before it. It was intended not to be written in common English. (David Daniell, The Bible in English pp 441-442)
Not Using the KJV Has Nothing to do with It Being an Accurate Translation
There is also the issue of treating the KJV as if it was a fresh translation into English, which it most definitely was not. The KJV is well-attested as a revision of the Bishop’s Bible using as much of Tyndale’s work as possible. The translators actually sat listening to the English translation of the Bishop’s Bible, comparing it to their Greek and Hebrew editions and suggesting variants and changes as necessary.
Not Using the KJV Has Nothing to do with It Being the Universal English Translation
The KJV was not a popular translation when it was first published. In fact, because of its association with James I, it was despised for quite some time until after the restoration of the monarchy in 1662. It was only then that the Church of England replaced the Book of Common Prayer Scripture readings from Coverdale with readings from the King James translation. That was fifty years after its translation – the equivalent of substituting THE APARTMENT with Shirley Maclaine (Academy Award for Best Picture in 1960) for THE HURT LOCKER (Best Picture in 2010) or John F. Kennedy for Barack Obama. Fifty years is a long time.
But even with that thought in our minds, acceptance in the Church of England is light years away from the presumed ‘universal’ acceptance of KJVO proponents. Most non-Anglican groups in England still did not use the KJV. The settlers in Virginia followed the Church of England’s lead, but the non-conformists of New England still clung to their Geneva Bibles.
For the first century of its existence, the KJV was the English Bible of the religious establishment and the monarchy, but it was not universally accredited by the English-speaking people. It’s inclusion in the Book of Common Prayer was itself an act of Parliament and had little to do with the preferences of the common people.
But by 1750, the KJV was THE English Bible. It was used by virtually all English-speaking churches, both Protestant and Catholic. What changed? And herein is one of the underlying, subconscious reasons some KJVO people desire so strongly to hold on to the KJV over other English translations.
The Imperial Bible
Simply put, the KJV is the Bible of the British Empire. This Empire was virtually unadministrated during the time of the English Civil War and the Commonwealth, but with the return of Charles II in 1662, there was a return to monarchy and the English monarchy never shied from thinking of itself as superior to all other governments.
The British Empire expanded tremendously during this period, especially as Europe descended into chaos with the failure of the Spanish Empire after the death of Philip IV in 1665. Without another power to rival them, Britain and France expanded across virtually the whole known world – absorbing the former Spanish colonies and conquering other regions.
Any student of history will tell you that any empire has a state religion, and the British Empire was no exception. Since the Empire was ruled by descendants of James I, the Bible of James I was the Scriptures of the state religion. Although the British armies committed atrocities and the British colonists exploited natives across the world, they took their King James Bibles with them. It was the King James Bible that Queen Victoria is said to have presented to a native prince as “the strength of the empire.”
What Does This Have to do with Today?
Although most proponents will not admit it, the KJV harkens back to a day when English-speaking people ruled the world. Could it be that it is a symbol of lost glory? A reminder of the imperial ambitions?
When did KJVO become prominent among Americans? During the time of American ascendancy following the Second World War. While I cannot say that this is an absolute statement, I would contend that the KJV has a certain mystique of English-speaking superiority to it.
This, more than any other reason, is the thought that made me question the position of KJVO. Alone, it was not enough for me to stop using it (I still do). The KJV is an exceptional translation, and it is exactly what it was created to be. But to hold to one Bible because of its attachment to the past, and to create doctrines out of thin air to prove its superiority so you can justify your attachment is, to me at least, absolutely absurd.
William Dudding
April 7, 2010
I was arguing with a guy who left our church over the KJVO issue and he said that God chose English to be the universally spoken lanuage in the world and that’s why the KJV is THE Bible for English speaking people…i asked for some scripture to back that up and he said – “that’s just the way it is” as if that was supposed to satisfy me. Most of the KJVO crowd are absolutely out of thier cotton pick’n minds.
Roland E. Pittman
April 8, 2010
I think the guy is mistaken but do you have Scripture to refute him? This seems to be a clash of opinions rather than a Biblical issue. Even Christian folks are entitled to some crazy ideas. The judgment seems a little harsh and superior.
Erik
April 8, 2010
I would not say they’re out of their minds. Most KJVO people ‘in the pews’ represent the ideas they have been taught. They are good people and are entitled to their opinions and ideas. While personally I cannot hold to their positions because I don’t think the arguments are solid, they are entitled to their opinions. And I’ll carry on a dialogue as long as they’re willing to not descend into ad hominem attacks and rejections of abstract ideas without consideration (which sadly occurs lower in these comments).
Kent Brandenburg
April 8, 2010
Erik,
But if it’s only someone’s opinion, then ad hominem is actually OK, right?
And who says we didn’t consider your abstract idea for which you presented zero evidence?
It’s not like people haven’t heard what you are presenting. It’s the propaganda taught in the Native and African American studies departments at UC Berkeley.
Erik
April 8, 2010
I never attended UC Berkeley, so I wouldn’t know, nor do I care.
Actually, I presented plenty of circumstantial indicators – the FACT that the KJV was not added to the CBP until the Charles II’s return (which was a well-documented act of Parliament), the FACT that the KJV was intentionally archaic (which you can read in the translators’ preface), the FACT that contemporary writers were hesitant about accepting the KJV, the FACT that the KJV was translating at the behest of James I who believed in the divine right of kings and generally did such a great job of ruling the British empire that supposed Christian rebels beheaded his son…
Add to that the FACT that Americans adopted many of the trappings of both imperial Rome and European empires, including the idea of MANIFEST DESTINY and routinely writing of the USA as if it is some kind of replacement for Israel (attested in their writings).
Sure feels like imperialism to me…
JasonS
April 8, 2010
“It’s not like people haven’t heard what you are presenting. It’s the propaganda taught in the Native and African American studies departments at UC Berkeley.”
Now that’s what I call a racist sort of statement, unless you are willing to clarify it and explain it, because right now it smacks very much of racism by simply associating it with the teaching that occurs in studies of people who are non-white. At this point you have only given proof to Erik of what he was saying could possibly be an issue. I have a feeling that you probably didn’t mean for it to come across as it did. I surely hope you meant otherwise.
I also hope you’ll learn to tone down the rhetoric and interact with reason instead of ad hominems, because they are unacceptable no matter what the issue may be.
Israel
April 13, 2010
This is not just an opinion anymore; it is a cult, and it is a very dangerous cult. As you probably know already, they are attacking verbally, to those who disagree, and now they jumped to corect and translate the Spanish Reina-Valera 1960 taking the King James Bible as the sole and most important source. They chose a mexican Humberto Gomez, to portey it as if it is a home made version of the Spanish Bible, when in reality, the american spirit and the american dollar is the one behind that american pride product. A weak product.
And is just getting worst. Do your own research.
Erik
April 13, 2010
I would not agree that it is a cult. Cults generally: 1) have a single human ‘founder’ or ‘leader’ who claims absolute extra-biblical authority; 2) deny cardinal doctrines of the faith. While I might not agree with their position, I would not say KJVO is a cult. There might be personality cults within the broad category of KJVO, most of the KJVO people I know are good people who love the Bible and God.
JasonS
April 7, 2010
Great post with very good thoughts. I’ll have to say that the point you make is very sensible and may very well be correct.
“Glory day! They’ll pass you by, Glory days!” and “Gimme that ole time religion” are just as nostalgic as the KJV. Perhaps not as holy, but nostalgia does not spirituality make…
Erik
April 7, 2010
You should hear the reaction I get when I tell people that the ‘conviction’ against drums in the church is rooted in racism…
JasonS
April 7, 2010
There’s much truth in that, though.
Sadly, we hate to think of those things.
Roland E. Pittman
April 8, 2010
Really? How do you know? Sounds like another politically correct fantasy to me.
The people, whom I know, that are opposed to drums say that it is because it appeals to the flesh and the rhythm arouses sensual lusts and desires. There may be some sense in this view. It was commonly known among guys in the 1960-1970′s that the best place to pick up girls, who would really put out, was where music with a heavy beat was played. Does the heavy rhythm arouse passion?
If Christians say they believe heavy rhythm with drums arouse lust, how do you know that it’s racism instead of what they say? How is it that you know their thoughts and own minds better than they? I would be interested to know.
Erik
April 8, 2010
The term ‘jungle music’ and the apocryphal stories about missionaries who had witch doctors tell them that they use rock n roll to summon demons don’t smack of racism? Because I’ve heard these kinds of things uttered from pulpits and in the pews.
Heavy rhythms with drums arouse lust? Ask them where that notion came from. Ultimately, it is rooted in the white fear of the ‘black’ music that became rock n roll.
You’re entitled to your opinions.
Craig
April 10, 2010
I was at a conference not too long ago and one of the presenters said something very similar.
Kent Brandenburg
April 8, 2010
Is this a scientific study? Or just an opinion? What is your sample size? Because I’ve never heard this in my entire life from a KJV supporter. And what does your rich analysis hope to accomplish? Are these English empire loving (imperialists) King James people going to have it now dawn on them that this is what it has always been about after all? And then what? What do we do with the problem of a different text for the modern Bibles? Will that stop mattering because it never was about the text or faith in God’s preservation, but it was actually either British imperialism or American ascendancy?
Neither have I met someone who opposes rock music because drums are used. I hear this group refuted regularly by CCM supporters but I’ve never met one or read one. And on top of that, they’re racists. You sound like Frank Rich of the NY Times. Perhaps you and he are the only two non-racists on earth, therefore able to cast judgment on all others. Your analysis focuses on race a bit like someone obsessed with race.
But I get the picture, churches who use the the KJV and traditional music are English white racist imperialists. Myopic doesn’t do you justice.
Erik
April 8, 2010
This was an opinion, not a scientific study hence the use of the conditional mood and rhetorical questions. You’re entitled to your opinions as well.
Fred Moritz
April 8, 2010
I have read a lot of the men whom I would call “extremists” on the KJV. I have about five feet of bookshelf and about a foot of file cabinet space taken up with books and articles from Dan Wallace on one side to Tom Strouse on the other. I have never read anything that would intimate what is argued in this article. I have talked with some of those men, and have no hint of protecting the KJV because of imperialism as a motive. I have talked extensively with men who moved to another translation in their pulpit ministries, and the overwhelming reason I have heard is to get away from the archaic language. I simply don’t think this post holds water.
Erik
April 8, 2010
Ah, so you’ve never heard it so it must not be true…got it.
Imperialism is different from nationalism. Nationalism is stated clearly. Imperialism is a cultural sense, it has a feel of subconscious. For example, MANIFEST DESTINY was American imperialism. The idea was, America is God’s people so we deserve to rule the entire continent. It was NEVER stated that way, but that’s really what it was. And in the name of MANIFEST DESTINY, Americans (good people by the way) displaced the Native Americans, virtually drove the bison to distinction, and committed other atrocities along the way. No one said, “We’re doing this because we believe we’re good and everyone else is bad.” But that’s still what it boiled down to.
Chris Cole
April 8, 2010
While I certainly agree that the American Bison is an animal of distinction, I think what you meant was “driven to extinction.” Makes a nice poem, I think. (Just teasin’! I know it was just a typo)
Erik
April 8, 2010
Wow…thanks for the correction, Chris…just typing too fast for my own good.
Roland E. Pittman
April 8, 2010
If one is politically correct in despising British Imperialism and the KJV, then this article probably makes sense, otherwise, it doesn’t. The post is full of “missing links.” It places British Imperialism, British attitudes of superiority, Charles II, Queen Victoria, the KJV, American ascendancy, etc. in juxtaposition and connects them with lines to prove its point much like the evolutionists draw phylogenetic trees without the “missing links.” It is singularly lacking in merit and sound reasoning.
Erik
April 8, 2010
Opinion piece. I shared my opinions. Re-read the article and you will see very plainly that this was embryonic thoughts, not a definitive statement. There is nothing dogmatic in the text. It was written to be open-ended and start conversation, perhaps stir some research or critical thinking…apparently, those things are not allowed in things you read?
Bill Toothman
April 11, 2010
You are really touchy when someone does not agree with your “opinion” Erik. You need to “chill out”.
Erik
April 11, 2010
Bill, you’re entitled to your interpretation of my response. I felt it was appropriate to Roland’s condescending tone.
Yin Sayne
April 8, 2010
@Brandenburg
Why not this: Just as the Constantinian Christians of blessed memory placed the imprimatur on the canon in the 4th century, so the Imperialist King James Only WASPs, 15 centuries later, placed the imprimatur on text of the King James Bible for all time.
Why ask for scientific corroboration when one has the logic of faith?
Kent Brandenburg
April 8, 2010
Yin,
Were Luther, Reina, and Valera also Imperialist Anglo Saxons
Erik
April 8, 2010
Wait wait. My post had nothing to do with the TEXT of the KJV. The English text is an accurate translation and while it has certain cultural markers, it is faithful. It is not the TEXT.
bob topartzer
April 8, 2010
I have never read or heard anything from KJVO people about imperialism. Most are oblivious of English history.
I have observed that it may be a doctrine that gives that special authority and unique niche to Pastors and their churches when the Pastor has little or no training and no acquaintance with the original languages. It sets apart and gains a following from the easily led.
Also, some people appear to have a cultic mindset that attracts them to any unique doctrine.
Many KJVO seem to adopt the position and then set out to find the arguments for it!!
John Cereghin
April 8, 2010
As one of the hated and despised (by the modern neo-fundamentalists and young fundamentalists), KJV supporters, I can say I have never heard this theory before. Maybe we support the KJV because of its superior manuscripts, history and the multitude of errors in the modern versions? Why all this hate against the KJV and those who promote it? Or is this just another desperate attempt to discredit the KJV and the men who support it against the modern versions?
In other words, your thesis has serious errors and we have to wonder about your motivations in posting your opinion on this.
Erik
April 8, 2010
This has nothing to do with the TEXT of the KJV. As I have reiterated both in the post and in the comments, the KJV is an accurate translation. It has nothing to do with hating on the KJV. I love the KJV; it is a beautiful translation. And, John, in case you haven’t read the whole post, I suggest you go back and read the beginning where I shared that I have tremendous respect for my father, who is a KJVO proponent, and that extends to many who share his position.
My motivations were explained VERY PLAINLY in the post. I did not stop using the KJV because of 1) its archaic language, 2) it is inaccurate or 3) because it had dropped out of use. As I studied the history of the English-speaking people, what the KJVO proponents often comment upon as the KJV’s rise to universal acceptance coincided with an era of English imperialism. It’s not right, wrong or indifferent. It was simply a parallel that I observed, and I attempted to share it as such.
But when I listened to people then start to reverse engineer this idea that the KJV is God’s Word for the English speaking people – to the exclusion of all other translations – and then to even translate the KJV into other languages, I see indicators that this is more than a text issue. When I hear a tinge of superiority in the voices of those who use the KJV, when I endure the patronizing tones of those I know who now look down on me for not using the KJV (and as I’ve read in these comments) – I have to ask where that mentality comes from.
If you’re KJVO, you’ve got nothing to prove here, to be honest. I was KJVO; I taught it. And I wish I could embrace the position as you do; but I can’t. I’ve shared my journey and tried very hard not to disparage others in the process. So, if the questions posited by this post offend you, then I am sorry, but I won’t apologize for it.
You should know that I have approved everyone of these comments. If I had chosen to, I could have simply deleted your protests. I have not because this post was not written in the spirit of being right and condemning all others. It was written to open dialogue, and I’m glad it has done so, even if some participants choose to see an attack where there was not one.
Doug Wilcox
April 9, 2010
Note: I realize this is off-topic.
“Maybe we support the KJV because of its superior manuscripts, history and the multitude of errors in the modern versions?”
I have yet to meet a KJV-supporter, who has the slightest evidence for superior manuscripts, history, nor the multitude of errors in the modern versions. I have met hundreds (indeed!) who will cite such reasons, but none of them are supported by evidence.
Edwin Clive
April 16, 2010
Doug Wilcox says:
“I have yet to meet a KJV-supporter, who has the slightest evidence for superior manuscripts, history, nor the multitude of errors in the modern versions. I have met hundreds (indeed!) who will cite such reasons, but none of them are supported by evidence.”
I am a KJV supporter, and believe the Text (Greek TR, + Massoretic)on which the translation was based, to be superior. I am aiming to build a website to show through textual analysis etc., that this is a reasonable ‘faith’ position to hold to. See http://www.receivedtext.blogspot.com
Erik
April 16, 2010
Thanks, Edwin. We will definitely check out your resource and hopefully we can enter into a dialogue that is profitable for both of us.
John G
April 8, 2010
Hello,
“My place in this blog is as one of the historians. I am fanatic when it comes to historical accuracy.”
Erik – July 28, 2009
What text did believers use before 1800?
What text do you use?
Blessings
John Gardner
Erik
April 9, 2010
Not to answer your question with a question, but…
What text did believers use for the centuries before the TR was published in the 16th century?
As to what text I use, I do my best to use as many as I can – as the KJV translators did. I don’t adhere to the belief that inspiration can only apply to one text family or another. The number of significant variances across the spectrum of the so-called ‘text families’ is minimal.
And let me just shortcut the discussion of texts.
As repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN now, this post was NOT about the KJV. It is an accurate translation, and I have tremendous respect for use it and for those who are TR-only as well. It was about the underlying cultural world in which KJVO emerged.
Erik
April 9, 2010
That last statement should be:
As repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN now, this post was NOT about the KJV. It is an accurate translation, and I have tremendous respect for those use it and for those who are TR-only as well. It was about the underlying cultural world in which KJVO emerged.
Damien T Garofalo
April 8, 2010
Basically, Erik is asking a yes or no question, or at least inspiring some conversation. He’s not attacking the KJV or those who use it exclusively. But as is often the case, that’s not being seen – despite his qualifiers and disclaimers in the post and elaborations in the comments. It becomes a laborious and non-edifying task to have discussions like these because of all the emotional baggage brought to the table. If you’re KJVO and disagree with Erik, why not tell him why? Why does this have to be seen as an all out personal attack, motivated by sinful opinions? Have you ever read what a large portion of pop-KJVO material says about US? We try to come here with a level of charity. Strong statements are made at times, but we can talk these things out – that’s the point.
Personally, my answer is “no.” King James Onlyism is NOT rooted in imperialism. There is nothing imperialistic about the exclusive use of the KJV. I’ve never read anything like it from any KJVO proponent, with a minor exception that Ruckman has been referred to as a racist and even British Israelite (Waite spoke on this in one of his seminars) but I can’t substantiate those claims. It is clear, with the abundant sources we have, that KJVO is rooted in conceptions about the text, the history of the transmission of that text, and certain interpretations of biblical passages. I doubt any KJVO advocate has imperialistic desires when he defends his version.
So while I say “no” to the question, “is King James Onlyism rooted in imperialism?”, I think there might be a case for saying that imperialism was one of (if not the chief) the means by which the KJV rose to prominence. In that regard, I think some of the things Erik mentioned serve as evidence. This of course doesn’t make the KJVO position right or wrong. God uses various means to accomplish his will. British imperialism also gave rise to a huge missionary movement. If it also was the main cause behind the KJV’s popularity, we can simply say that’s a fact and draw our own conclusions, just as Byzantine scriptoriums were used to preserve the Byzantine family of manuscripts. Honestly, the only conclusion I can draw from it is simply the need to take it into consideration when dealing with the issue of the prominence of a version. If you’re KJVO and don’t care that the KJVO was such a bestseller for a long time then this isn’t for you. But for those who use that argument, and then turn around and lambaste the popularity of modern Bibles, such as the NIV by citing all the means by which it became popular (“it’s a compromise”; “it’s all about money”; “there was a great advertising campaign”, etc.) need to consider the means by which the KJV achieved its place in history.
fundyreformed
April 8, 2010
Good questions, Erik. This post was linked by Sharper Iron’s Filings, and someone over there left a kind comment I thought I’d copy over here:
fundyreformed
April 8, 2010
RE: Erik’s main point, I see some validity in it. It’s not a direct thing but it does play into the thought of why the KJV should be the standard rather than say the Dutch Estates-General translation or Luther’s German translation.
I picked up one of my KJV-Only books and found some substantiation of this idea. Jack Moorman’s Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible (Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999) is a compilation of quotes, and pg. 243 of my copy led me to the internet to find the full quotes from Benjamin Wilkinson‘s book. Wilkinson is the author of the influential work Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Wilkinson’s book was reproduced by both J.J. Ray and David Otis Fuller without proper identification of Wilkinson as being a Seventh Day Adventist scholar. Doug Kutilek argues persuasively that Wilkinson’s work is what launched the modern KJV Only movement (by it’s being picked up and used by Ray in 1960 and Fuller in 1970).
The following comes from Wilkinson’s work published in 1930, available online here.
I find this as coming close to a substantiation of Erik’s ideas that a high view of Britain and America was in part a motivation for idolizing the English translation of the “good old days”.
JasonS
April 8, 2010
Bob,
The last phrase, “good old days” is the thing that I believe motivates many. The older people get the more they resist change, as a general rule. I can see that in myself as I get older. Things have changed drastically over the years. The last 6 decades has seen the USA especially become a morally debauched nation. It has gone downhill in my lifetime faster than I ever dreamed. Seeing this, many people long for the simpler days when the mothers were at home, wore dresses all of the time, dad worked and was leader in the home, and most of the preachers preached from the KJV. I see much of that in the places where I pastor. There are practices that are traditions, but people refuse to change for the better (and often more Biblical) way due to the fact that “we’ve done it like that for fifty years and it worked.”
Those good old days came about partly because of the rise, power, and dominance of England and the US. I understand the longing for the good old days. We’re in the here and now, though, so we must honor God by something other than nostalgia.
PS Ferguson
April 9, 2010
Bob Hayton
For a self-styled historical scholar, you have a facile grasp of history. You are clearly comfortable with embracing a text based upon unbelievers’ textual critical presuppositions that violate what Scripture teaches and what the church has always believed. In doing so, you carelessly surrender the Biblical promises on preservation and the historical doctrinal statements of our Reformed forefathers.
The work of the SDA Wilkinson had no bearing on the modern KJVO movement. Ironically, Kutilek et al do not acknowledge that their anti-TR view is derived from the work of two apostate Anglican scholars and that Wilkinson’s views were rejected by the Adventists who embrace fully the critical theories of Westcott and Hort!
Erik’s puerile argument could be easily turned on him as the Critical Text view was propogated at the zenith of the British Empire by the Anglican Establishment, I would not be so crass as to couple this incidental fact with the rise of imperialism. If anything, the RSV is tainted more with imperialism as it is the translation propagated by the imperialists. You would do well do check your facts before engaging in ignorant slander. As James Russell Lowell opined, “A sneer is the weapon of the weak.”
The TR only/KJVO view of the text is the biblical and historic view. In my article below, I listed from primary sources in a comprehensive manner the historic position:
http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2b.htm
If you have a credible case before Westcott and Hort, that sets forth the anti-TR/KJVO case, then put in out there for us all to judge instead of poisioning the wells by regurgitating Kutilek’s poor research.
The fragmented textual evidence and divergent unverifiable theories of apostate textual critics must not be used to understand the doctrine and process of preservation. Scripture is the only authoritative source of truth on this issue, because God through special providence is the only One who knows how He exactly preserved His Words. A lesser authority cannot authenticate a greater authority. Using a Neo-orthodox methodology, anti-TR advocates have outsourced the canonicity of the Words of God to the educated guess of the reader at any single moment in time. This “guess” will always be provisional as they believe it is legitimate to change this “guess” to a “new Word of God” in any subsequent analysis of the variants. This is a novel and radical development in bibliology.
Erik
April 9, 2010
Using Latinized insults is still insults. My post was not a ‘puerile argument’ and saying Bob has a ‘facile grasp of history’ to make it more ‘intellectual’ when what you really meant is that you think I’m childish and he does sloppy surface level research is patronizing and insulting. I can throw Latinisms around too, if you’d like.
This post was NOT about the text of the TR or the KJV translation. It was about the history surrounding the ‘universal’ use of the KJV, and no one seems to want to touch that issue. Everyone is arguing needlessly about questions that I never brought up.
So, I am going to be very plain. IF you want to discuss the TEXT of the TR or the KJV, so so in another post somewhere. This entry was about the imperial ascent of the British Empire after Charles II’s return and the fact that the KJV ascended with it. This entry was about the FACT that the KJVO controversy emerged in the 20th century, after the fall of the British Empire and the rise of the USA as the prominent English-speaking culture in the post-World War II world.
If you want to discuss THOSE THINGS, then I’ll respond. Any further posts on textual issues will not be posted to this item. I have asked SEVERAL TIMES now for people to stay on topic.
CD-Host
April 17, 2010
Wilkinson’s views were rejected by the Adventists who embrace fully the critical theories of Westcott and Hort!
Actually no. Until the Clear Word translation the 7th Day Adventists were almost exclusively a KJV church, and the KJV is still essentially the official denominational translation. If you go to an adventist book store, for example adventist book center, you’ll see the bibles are either Clear Word or KJV. The broader Millerite movement has some churches which were strongly supportive of W&H, but not the Adventists.
PS Ferguson
April 9, 2010
Erik
The British Empire reached its zenith during Britain’s Imperial Century (1815–1914) holding sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world’s population at the time, and covering more than 13,000,000 square miles.
The Critical Text Movement emerged through the influence of German Higher Critical thinking on the Anglican Establishment in the mid-nineteenth century. This culminated in the 1881 RV and the first edition of the rival evolutionary Greek Text.
I realise this does not fit your misguided hypothesis, but those are the facts.
The 20th Century KJVO controversy emerged from the historical position on perfect preservation of the Received Texts documented in the views of the Reformers and the Confessional statements. It was not some radical innovation in bibliology. Here are a few quotes to get you going:
Samuel Tregelles notes,
Beza’s text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis….After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based.
So strongly did the Reformers and their heirs fall back on the TR that textual critics such as Richard Bentley in 1716 derided it as “the Protestant Pope Stephens,” but admitted that “Stephens’ edition, set out and regulated by himself alone, is now become the standard. The text stands, as if an Apostle was his compositor.”
A typical historic view is that of Joseph Philpot, Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, and editor of The Gospel Standard who in 1857 argued against a revision of KJV because the biblical scholars of that day were “notoriously either tainted with popery or infidelity.”
Basil Manly wrote in his classic work The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration in 1888, “There is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James, or Luther’s.”
Now, you and Bob Hayton can talk about Benjamin Wilkinson 1872–1968)till the cows come home, but I can assure you he postdates all of the multiple named sources above and in my article. I trust you will have the grace to withdraw your claims.
JasonS
April 9, 2010
PS,
You said:
“Now, you and Bob Hayton can talk about Benjamin Wilkinson 1872–1968)till the cows come home, but I can assure you he postdates all of the multiple named sources above and in my article. I trust you will have the grace to withdraw your claims.”
The problem is that you have done nothing to prove them wrong. Dates and people who wrote before Wilkinson do not negate the things that Bob posted. PROVE Bob’s quotes to be out of context and you prove him wrong. Otherwise you do not.
Erik has asked that you stay on the subject of KJVOism and Imperialism. Leave the text of the KJV and TR alone. That is not the subject of this post.
This is your last warning to stay on subject.
Erik
April 9, 2010
I have written a post that hopefully with clarify the scope of this post. You can find it here:
http://fundamentallychanged.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/addressing-kjv-onlyism-again/
Doug Wilcox
April 9, 2010
Fascinating discussion, when on-topic–and equally fascinating for other reasons when off-topic.
I nearly agree with Erik’s premise, perhaps joining with Damien G. to propose that “KJV-Onlyism is influenced by imperialism” is an acceptable conclusion, and a valid answer to the headline’s question.
Job
April 9, 2010
I am a King James chauvinist, I guess King James Preferred, only because the newer translations seem to omit or soften vital information. It nearly always seems that the deviations between the King James Version and the newer versions tend towards a “less spiritual” or a “more liberal” direction. And the decisions that are made … we hear “the best manuscripts from Luke don’t have this text, but it is OK because information in this text is also in Mark” but then you go to Mark and hear “we removed this text because not only was it not in the best manuscripts, but it appears nowhere else in the gospels.” So it was OK to take one text out of Luke because it appears in Mark, but it is OK to take another text out of Mark because it isn’t in Luke? Then other explanations “we really don’t need this text because it is not doctrinally important.” But who decides what is doctrinally important and what isn’t? Calvinists? Arminians? Thomas Jefferson perhaps? Or the Jesus Seminar?
KJVOnlyism (and King James Preferredism) has its origins as a reactionary movement to what was perceived as an attempt to slowly over time gut the Bible, especially after some versions (i.e. the original RSV) took what was originally perceived to be frontal assault on the divinity and virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Many such people aren’t so much concerned with what the NIV, ESV, NASB etc. look like today. There is a concession on some level that there are legitimate alternate translations. (For instance, even a KJVOnly person acknowledges the need for foreign language Bibles.) But what will the NIV, ESV, NASB etc. contain 200 years from now? And yes, it is a problem among this crowd that leading evangelical scholars and theologians are willing to be influenced by critical scholarship, and go along with the idea that certain texts are “unimportant” and that the doctrines based on those texts are “long held Christian orthodoxy that should no longer be supported using suspect texts.” That turns Protestant doctrine into Catholic tradition – it is accepted by the majority consent of the church over a long period of time and not the Bible – and it also does not guarantee that these doctrines will be preserved when the majority opinion of the church changes with the times. It is not too hard to imagine in future times Christians who grew up without 1 John 5:8 wondering what was ever so important about the Trinity doctrine in the first place, especially if oneness pentecostals continue to grow in number and influence. There are also pressure groups (from Jews to feminists to gay rights activists) attempting to force changes that a couple of hundred years from now would result in our believing that anti-Semitism was responsible for the belief that Jews rejected Jesus Christ, and that outdated Middle Eastern misogyny was the reason behind the male Jewish priesthood and that the decision to forbid women pastors was based on the wrong decision by the Pharisee Paul to import ancient Jewish prejudices into the church.
KJVOnlyism, plain and simple, is about preserving key texts and the doctrines on which they are based, and by extension preserving a strong view of sola scriptura, which includes the final authority and inerrancy/infallibility of scripture.
Like it or not, western Christianity still reacts to a mindset created by the King James Version. The KJV still influences the other translations, and the people who adhere to other translations basically heed to an orthodoxy or worldview centered around the KJV.
200 years from now, evangelical and fundamental Protestants won’t be reading translations influenced by the KJV, and more important they won’t have the orthodox worldview created by the KJV impressed on their minds. Instead, the worldview will be one created by versions produced by the combination of critical scholarship (again which many conservative evangelicals have conceded more ground to than they are willing to admit, and they are able to concede this ground because of the existence of a large Christian contingent who will hold that ground anyway) and corporate owned Bible publishers who react to pressure groups for financial reasons. And yes, the latter is important. Stand up to gay rights groups now? Fine. But stand up to them 200 years from now when gay marriage is a long embedded feature in western culture, and opposition to it is viewed with the same contempt that slavery and racism is today? A different matter. And even today, standing up to Jewish interests attempting to excise the alleged anti-Semitism in the Bible is difficult, and that task is even more so if the Jewish interests have “Christian Zionist” dispensationalists on their side. And then there will be pressure to mollify the increasing number of “evangelical Christians” who are religious pluralists, and others who are convinced that evangelicalism should accommodate Catholicism.
So at its root, KJVOnlyism is about making sure that 200 years from now, the Bible that most Christians read is still a valid, legitimate Bible. While the movement itself has to be considered false, the concerns which motivated the movement are very legitimate.
Erik
April 9, 2010
Job,
Thank you for your response. I would consider this a valid reason to KJVO. It is rooted not in created doctrine but a concern (a valid concern) that some modern translations take liberty with the text.
JasonS
April 9, 2010
Job,
Thanks for commenting. This post is related to the possible origins of KJVOism in British/US imperialism. We’re trying hard to stay on that topic so that the discussion doesn’t degenerate any further.
Thanks,
Jason
Job
April 9, 2010
Jason:
I am sorry, I should have been more clear in my reply. My aim was to propose that British/US imperialism has little to do with KJVonlyism. After all, even KJVonlyism asserts that the KJV is the Bible for the ENGLISH world. Imperialism would mean forcing non-English speakers to read only the KJV, even if it meant having to learn English for the sole purpose of reading the Bible, and if it meant that people who do not know English won’t be able to read the Bible. That was an issue of earlier periods of Christianity that first insisted that the Bible should only be read in its original language and then insisted that it only be read in Latin, and it is also an issue with other religions (i.e. Islam) who require the Koran and other books to be in a certain language if it is to be used in official capacities. But how can it be British/English imperialism if the debate is one English translation over another, especially in the case of KJVOnly advocates who will not even accept the NKJV?
Also, how many of these KJVOnly types are red, white and blue flag waving Americans who have no use whatsoever for anything British? While there may certainly be some Anglophile pockets in America, claiming that (for instance) red state KJVonly fundamentalists are adhering to notions of the superiority and supremacy of a 17th century British Empire that we defeated in a war is very problematic when looking at American KJVOnly types sociologically and theologically.
Considering the latter, the KJVOnly people readily acknowledge the groundwork for the KJV that was laid by Luther, Calvin and a host of other non-Brits. And the former, while politically conservative KJVOnly types do oft entertain notions of the supremacy of western culture, they consider America (or at least some idealized notion of America past, perhaps 1950 for northern and western fundamentalists and 1850 for southern ones) to be the high point of western culture, not the British empire that America successfully rebelled against and quickly surpassed in wealth, power, influence and religiosity. You mentioned that the KJVonly came after the postwar ascendancy … that was an AMERICAN postwar ascendancy, because most Americans felt that the U.S. turned the tide of World War II and were leading the fight against the Soviets in the Cold War. While the contributions of the Brits in both World War II and the Cold War were appreciated, most felt that the Brits were simply following the lead of and helping an American empire that was superior to the British one, leading the Brits (and everyone else) to call us “the ugly Americans.”
So far from trying to hold onto some ideal of British imperialism, the KJV is likely the only thing British that a high percentage of the American politically conservative KJVonly crowd has any regard for. What American KJVonly sort laments the fact that Britain gave up its colonies and ceased to be an empire? That is a position more likely to be embraced by a diehard covenant amillennial theology sort (i.e. Episcopal/Anglican or Presbyterian) who believed that it was in the interests of the kingdom of God for Christian Britain to rule India and reads the ESV or RSV and not, say, a KJVonly dispensational Baptist who is far more interested in converting individual Indians with missionary work than with seeing India governed by a “Christian nation”. Indeed, the TexeMarrs.com/Jesus-Is-Savior.com KJVonly dispensational sort views the breakup of the British Empire to be a good thing, one that delayed the recreation of the one world government that the anti-Christ will rule. So, the KJVOnly crowd – or at least the very large dispensationalist elements of it – is far more likely to consider Britain’s current leading role in the European Union that they consider to be a potential “new Roman Empire” than trying to keep alive some British imperialistic fantasy. After all, why only the KJV and not the Revised Version, which was also created by the British Empire?
KJVOnlyists are concerned with scriptural and doctrinal purity and preservation (the point of my comment above), not with King James and Queen Elizabeth. And finally, allow me to remind you that associating “A reminder of the imperial ambitions?” with Bible-believing Protestant Christians sounds like something that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens would say.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
fundyreformed
April 9, 2010
Job,
Are you familiar with the extreme KJV Only position which actually advocates using the KJV as a basis for translating the Bible into other languages. Many believe that without knowing English, other people really do not have access to God’s Word today.
Thanks for interacting over here though. You are entitled to your opinion. I think at least in the subconscious level, there was an effect or influence on the movement due to these ideas (which in many cases were quite innocent and well-meaning).
JasonS
April 9, 2010
Job,
Thanks for commenting.
In the past I have run across those who think that the KJV is the only Bible for all people. In fact, if you go to localchurchbiblepublishers.com you will probably still find a Spanish Bible that is nothing but a translation of the KJV. I bought one for a friend in the past, and he couldn’t even use it due to their having the sentence structure incorrect.
We’re not dealing with British imperialism, though. It’s English in the sense of being British and US related.
Damien T Garofalo
April 9, 2010
“KJVOnlyism, plain and simple, is about preserving key texts and the doctrines on which they are based, and by extension preserving a strong view of sola scriptura, which includes the final authority and inerrancy/infallibility of scripture.”
I’m not sure if you meant to say it that way, but we contend that the doctrines are based on the text, not that the text (or textual choices) are based on doctrine. In this matter, it does seem evident that an influential factor in KJVO is sentiment. Understandably, we all have sentiment for true doctrine, as we should! But we can’t decide on a textual variant’s fate based upon the doctrine we like.
Sorry that was off topic once again! But everyone else is doing it, so. . .
CD-Host
April 17, 2010
Job first of all great comment. Its really helpful when people admit what the real issue is. And I incidentally agree with your general point while disagreeing with the specifics. The move towards a more humane bible was late 19th century through the 1950s in liberalism. Essentially the conservative evangelicals are running about 150 years behind and they are starting to fight those battles now.
What’s going on in liberalism today is taking place in a context which is postmodern. The bible books are as particular political writings representing particular factions in a debate and the bible we have is the result of “who won”. The proper way to create a more humane bible is to examine these writings in light of “who lost”. In other words the liberal approach has shifted against discussing verses towards a broad based deconstructionist approach. The bible 200 years from now is not likely to look like a liberal bible so much as a scholarly bible.
fundyreformed
April 9, 2010
This is off topic, but just a quick short reply to PJ.
You didn’t disprove some basis to my claim that Wilkinson’s work in its regurgitated form through JJ Ray’s God Only Wrote One Bible and David Otis Fuller’s Which Bible had an influence on the modern KJV Only movement. Almost every fundamentalist Bible College in America which teaches KJV Onlyism either started after 1980 or originally did not teach KJV Onlyism but changed. I know several examples of fundamentalist leaders who were converted to KJV Onlyism, and several fundamentalist leaders of generations gone by who never were KJV Only.
There were influences to tip the movement in the KJVO direction. The Reformed era’s view of the TR as being perfect was just one and probably a minor one, given the association and background of the fundamentalist movement as a whole. Anyone looking at a cross section of all groups that use exclusively the KJV would not conclude that very many of them were influenced by a historic orthodoxy in its Reformed Protestant garb.
Kent Brandenburg
April 9, 2010
I’ve never read Wilkinson or Jay or Fuller. But I have taught history for over 20 years in addition to pastoring. Many Christians have a providential view of history, believing that history is HIS STORY. All historians come to history with a worldview, a particular personal predisposition. Christians come to history with a theological predisposition, based upon what God Himself has said about His place in the affairs of men. If we believe that God is in charge and that history unfolds according to His sovereign will, then we are happy to see several points.
1. The Bible had an important place in English History: Alfred, Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV.
2. God blessed England: the sinking of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the spread of British culture all over the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, which included the spread of the Bible.
3. The Bible spread to all the British colonies.
4. The Bible was preached to the world by British and American missionaries: China, India, and Africa.
5. The Sovereign God providentially used Great Britain to spread His Word all over the world—Praise the Lord!
6. We recognize God’s sovereignty, we see His providence, and we see that the King James Version was the Bible of this people.
7. This has nothing to do with the English language or of the white race, but it has to do with a people that more than any other cared about Scripture and God blessed that, as He always does.
8. The Spanish had the inquisition and their state Catholicism. The French had their Catholicism and then their atheism. The Indians and Asians had their Hinduism and Buddhism. The Africans had animism and pantheism. The Middle Easterners went for Islam. All of these had music, by the way, that matched their worship and their culture—all of it has now spread to the U.S. in some fashion and is worthy of being judged by Christians as to the influence of pagan worship and culture upon it.
9. Both direct Divine judgment and the built in consequences of sin fall on those people who do not love God’s Word. Non-Christian cultures received judgment from God because of their unscriptural behavior.
Do we believe in the sovereignty of God and of His providence?
I take this position of history rather than some conspiratorial, evil British empire view, where “the man” wants to impose His will on the weaker and less fortunate. Has some abuses occurred? Yes. But overall, my above is more fitting with a biblical view of history.
Erik
April 9, 2010
Conspiratorial? Come on, Ken. There was nothing conspiratorial about the observations in this post. I would disagree about your interpretation of history, and since I have that right, I will continue to disagree. I’m a student of history myself, and I don’t see it the way you do. Thanks for your post all the same.
JasonS
April 9, 2010
“This has nothing to do with the English language or of the white race, but it has to do with a people that more than any other cared about Scripture and God blessed that, as He always does.”
That’s a very odd statement, if you’ll consider it. After all, those Anglicans are not people you would have had in your church. Yet you say that they cared about Scripture.
One purpose behind the translation of the KJV was to have an English Bible without those troublesome Geneva Bible notes that opposed the divine right of kings. Yet you say they cared about Scripture?
The KJV is a wonderful translation and the one that I preach out of exclusively. I also use it as my primary study Bible. I love it, respect it, enjoy it, and learn from it. That particular statement from you seems very incorrect, however.
Damien T Garofalo
April 9, 2010
I think Kent provides a reasonable summary, and I agree. As I said earlier, British imperialism is one of the means, if not the chief one, by which the Bible, and Christian missionaries, spread throughout the world in the modern world. So imperialism gave rise to the prominence of the KJV. And also, as I said before, this is simply a fact, you can draw your own conclusions. Certainly, God is sovereign, and He used those means for His purposes.
Erik
April 9, 2010
KEN: 1. The Bible had an important place in English History: Alfred, Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV.
Erik: No argument there, except that Wyclif translated the Vulgate, which deviates significantly from the TR and was…well, in Latin. You also failed to mention the Bishop’s Bible, which was the English basis of the KJV.
KEN: 2. God blessed England: the sinking of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the spread of British culture all over the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, which included the spread of the Bible.
ERIK: Of course, he also blessed England with The English Civil War (1641-1651), the London Fires (1665), and the Glorious Revolution (1688). When exactly did this blessing begin? Was it before or after Henry VIII had several of his wives killed? Before or after James I and his son Charles I decided that they were God’s elect and above the laws of men? Before or after James I engaged in homosexual relationships while King of England? Before or after British policies virtually destroyed India during the 19th century, enforcing a tax burden on Indian peasants that was so tragically large that it made them virtual slaves to the East India Company?
Did God’s blessings begin BEFORE the translation of the KJV? Did they begin after the English Parliament officially adopted it in 1665? Since the British people elected a Jew – Benjamin Disraeli – as prime minister twice in the 1880′s, was that a sign that they had lost God’s blessing?
KEN: 3. The Bible spread to all the British colonies.
ERIK: Given, especially since the British colonies by in large were required to conform to the Church of England.
KEN: 4. The Bible was preached to the world by British and American missionaries: China, India, and Africa.
ERIK: From the KJV, of course, because the British often forced natives to learn English rather than translate the Bible into their native languages. Hudson Taylor and Adoniram Judson were mocked for their work to give the ‘primitives’ and ‘foreigner’s the Bible in their own tongue. After all, the New Testament was not translated into Hindi until 1811 and a whole Bible was not available until 1835. The Chinese still do not have a very good Bible in some of their dialects.
5. The Sovereign God providentially used Great Britain to spread His Word all over the world—Praise the Lord!
ERIK: And of course, those areas are now strongly conservative Christians – especially nations like Rwanda which, in the late 19th and 20th centuries was heralded as the most Christian nation in Africa. Oh wait, they have had massive ethnic cleansings where millions have been killed by their Christian brothers.
KEN: 6. We recognize God’s sovereignty, we see His providence, and we see that the King James Version was the Bible of this people.
7. This has nothing to do with the English language or of the white race, but it has to do with a people that more than any other cared about Scripture and God blessed that, as He always does.
ERIK: So, you can show us in Scripture where God sovereignly decreed that the English-speaking people would dominate the world and have the KJV as their Bible? I can think of a few other peoples who have made similar statements – from Charlemagne to Hitler. Don’t you think it is a little dangerous to start declaring God’s sovereign acts without a direct statement from him?
KEN: 8. The Spanish had the inquisition and their state Catholicism. The French had their Catholicism and then their atheism. The Indians and Asians had their Hinduism and Buddhism. The Africans had animism and pantheism. The Middle Easterners went for Islam. All of these had music, by the way, that matched their worship and their culture—all of it has now spread to the U.S. in some fashion and is worthy of being judged by Christians as to the influence of pagan worship and culture upon it.
ERIK: I’m not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Catholicism and derivatives thereof (such as many mainline denominations that I’m fairly certain you do not agree with) are by far the largest ‘Christian’ groups in the world. And most of the ‘Christians’ of the American colonies were not your brand either.
I offer the book The Churching of America by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark as a testament. Finke and Stark researched church attendance records and census throughout the colonial and revolutionary periods and discovered that the idea that the colonial Americans were somehow more devoutly Christian on the whole is simply not true. The percentage of faithful believers in the population is considerably higher in the late 20th century than it was in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
KEN: 9. Both direct Divine judgment and the built in consequences of sin fall on those people who do not love God’s Word. Non-Christian cultures received judgment from God because of their unscriptural behavior.
ERIK: This is an interesting statement in light of history. Supposed Christian ‘cultures’ have experienced tremendous natural disasters along with the rest of the world. Consider the 1667 hurricane that paralyzed the mid-Atlantic colonies or the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. What about the aforementioned London fires of 1665 or the economic ruin caused by the Potato Blight of the mid 1850′s? What about the Spanish Flu Pandemic in 1918 which, despite its name, hit the UNITED STATES first? Was the American Civil War a judgment for the sin of abandoning God’s Word? If so, which side was being judged, since millions died on both sides.
And what of English-speaking people who cannot read, like the African American slaves of the South during the Civil War and Reconstruction? In fact, what about them before that point? Was their slavery to the whites of the USA and other slave-holding nations a punishment for their sins?
And how does this compare to Jesus’ words: …he [God] maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45)? Are you making the reverence for the KJV the indication of whether a nation will experience disaster? Will the righteous be shielded from disease and defeat?
Hopefully, you can see that the logic train you are presenting is not as viable and air-tight as you would like it to be. History simply does not support it.
fundyreformed
April 9, 2010
Will Kinney a KJV Only proponent who has a strong web presence, just commented on the KJV Only site (see comment 21 for the link) affirming that he agrees with the sentiments of Wilkinson that I quoted. He would be in the vein of Brandenburg’s comments above on the influence of English in the world.
Both Brandenburg’s and Kinney’s comments show that there is some truth to Erik’s main thesis, in my opinion.
Erik
April 9, 2010
Here is the text of Will Kinney’s statement, and if it doesn’t sound like anglocentrism, then I don’t know what does:
fundyreformed
April 9, 2010
And there’s more than what Erik quoted, too….
PS Ferguson
April 9, 2010
Bob Hayton
You cannot have it both ways with your friends here. One of you wants to present the KJVO movement as some localised American reaction to the writings of Benjamim Wilkinson in the 1980s. The other wants to present an unsubstantiated theory that the KJVO movement is actually rooted in 18th Century British Imperialism. Clearly you don’t do irony!
Wilkinson Theory
This is simple to blow out of the water with a modicum of research. Wilkinson or Fuller had no impact on the British KJVO/TR Movement. Have you ever heard of the Trinitarian Bible Society which was formed in 1831? Have you ever heard of Salomon Caesar Malan who wrote “A plea for the received Greek text and for the Authorised version of the New Testament,” (London: Hatchaerds, 1869).
Have you heard of the chaplain to the king of England and keeper of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s records, Henry John Todd who wrote in 1819, “A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible in answer to Objections of Mr. John Bellamy and Sir James Bland Burges,” The Quarterly Review (May 1820)? In this 1820 review it says,
“Had this gentleman (meaning Mr. Bellamy) consulted any historical authority, or in the slightest degree investigated the characters of our translators, he would have found that many of them were celebrated Hebrew scholars, and could not have failed to perceive that the sacred language was at that time cultivated to a far greater extent in England than it has ever been since….. The turn which religious controversy took at the birth of the Reformation compelled all learned men to take their authorities from the inspired text, and not from a Romish version.—In the year 1540, King Henry the Eighth appointed regular Hebrew Professors, and the consequences of this measure were instantaneous. In Queen Elizabeth’s reign no person who pretended to eminence as a learned man was ignorant of this language, and so very common did it become, that the ladies of noble families frequently made it one of their accomplishments.
Under Queen Elizabeth and King James, who were not only the patrons of learning by their institutions, but examples of it in their own persons, Hebrew literature prospered to a very great extent, and under the last of these monarchs attained its greatest splendour. The Universities, and all public bodies for the promotion of learning, flourished in an extraordinary degree, and at this happy juncture our translation was made. Every circumstance had been conspiring during the whole of the preceding century to extend the study of Hebrew. The attempts of the Papists to check the circulation of the translations, the zeal of the Protestants to expose the Vulgate errors, the novelty of theological speculations to society at large, and even the disputes of the Reformed Churches, gave an animated vigour to the study of the original Scriptures which has never since been witnessed.”
The KJVO Movement is based on the defence of the underlying texts. As you can see from my paper the Masoretic/TR were the texts utilised to resist the corrupted Romanist Alexandrian attacks through the Vulgate and the ones enshrined in the Great Protestant Confessions. Any attempt to link this to Wilkinson (who if you read is actual writings argued with sourced quotations from the Reformers!)is incredulous.
An early British Fundamentalist leader, Dr Ian Paisley sets forth his KJVO position and the historical roots of it in his own book online:
http://www.ianpaisley.org/plea.asp
Try reading Edward F Hills “The King James Version Defended” and you will find that it is also based on a defence linked to the Received Texts providentially preserved through the Reformed Church.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm
DA Waite, David Cloud etc adopt the same line of argument. I would be very confident that the TBS, Paisley, Waite, Cloud and Hills (and even Letis) have had a much greater influence in promoting the TR/KJV in Fundamental circles than the writings of Wilkinson.
I could go on but a twenty minute google search of historical records pre-dating Wilkinson by centuries should suffice to show Kutilek’s “out there” theories proves noting more than Otis Fuller borrowed material from Wilkinson for a book he wrote. How that can be used to construct a theory that the KJVO Movement around the world came into being is beyond me. You say you are a student of history – please study some!
fundyreformed
April 9, 2010
PJ,
I would contend that Waite and Cloud were both influenced strongly by Fuller. Fuller in turn was influenced by Wilkinson’s work heavily. Wilkinson didn’t start modern KJV Onlyism but his work was a major factor in it. The American fundamentalist movement as a whole is much less tied to the Reformation heritage you cite in your paper, than they should be. And they are also not as keenly aware of pre 1881 defenses of the KJV.
In fact American Baptists in the 1800s were publishing their own revised Bible before the RV of 1881. The leaders of fundamentalism in the mid 1900s were not KJV Only by any stretch. John R Rice strongly disagreed with fundamentalism. Earlier leaders like WB Riley revered teh ASV. This is documented in the book One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible edited by Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder (Kregel, 2002). God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved For Us edited by James Williams & Randolph Shaylor (Ambassador-Emerald International, 2003) also addresses this.
Almost all fundamentalist Baptist colleges either started out without a KJV Only position, or else were founded in the 1980s or later. It’s a matter of fact that the position and controversy in the fundamentalist American circles is quite new. This is not to say that there were folks who favored the KJV/AV and were opposed to the motions set in place to revise it. E.F. Hills certainly wrote without need of any influence by Wilkinson, but his brand of KJV Onlyism does not reflect the majority opinion in the USA. He argues for errors in the TR and the KJV bot (just a few but still he allows for them), and he was trained in textual criticism.
PS Ferguson
April 10, 2010
You continue to make the unsubstantiated crass generalisation that US Baptists derived their KJVO position from Fuller via Wilkinson. I am glad you are now seeking to distinguish American Baptists from the rest of the world in this association which you did not in your initial post. Do you now accept that the rest of the TR/KJVO Movement throughout the world including the TBS, Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, The Bible League Trust, Free Presbyterians of Ulster and Scotland etc did not rely on Wilkinson for their historic position on the KJV and its underlying texts?
Your point concerning US Baptists does not hold any substance unless you can back it up with more than simply your opinion and, doubtless, very limited experience. I could easily argue that they derived their position from their British counterparts. Mere bald assertions do not prove anything unless you have some empirical research to back your argument. Interestingly, David Cloud is adamant that you are wrong in his riposte:
http://www.wayoflife.org/files/dd420ebe27b33612d57b5e89e02d863d-49.html
I note the Dean Burgon Society are as equally damning:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/guilt.htm
The Wilkipedia entry is interesting as it lists those who influenced Fuller as “Fuller’s three volumes on the subject of texts and versions contain the full or summarized works of many older authorities on the textual issue, including John Burgon, Herman C. Hoskier, Philip Mauro, Joseph Philpot, Samuel Zwemer, and George Sayles Bishop, as well as the works of a number of contemporary writers, including Edward Hills, Terence Brown, and Wilbur Pickering.” I suspect that this is factually accurate as his book One Bible Only was published long after the works of Hills, TBS etc. As someone educated at Princeton Theological Seminary it would be amazing he was not aware of these similar schools of thought.
Finally, I am amazed that this is seen to be an issue even if it was proven true. Many SDA writers have written on Creationism, Total Abstinence, CCM etc and their historical work been deemed accurate to cite. Certainly, your pastor John Piper is free and easy with whom he associates with such as the High Priest of Pragmatism and Ecumenism, Rick Warren let alone who Piper quotes. I note you claim to be a Calvinist, yet your understanding of this does not automatically make you a follower of every belief of Augustine or Calvin? What exactly is the point you and Kutilek are desperate to establish?
fundyreformed
April 10, 2010
And why do you keep saying that I say I’m a student of history. I believe you quoted Erik to that regard. I do study history, but am not an expert. I am well read with regard to this particular debate however. Your paper is one of the best presentations for your position, I’ve seen. It covers everything in a relatively short space. But I’m not convinced, and I think that polemics clouded the Reformers view of the printed texts they had. They were so busy dealing with the attacks from Rome it was easier to find refuge in an error-free printed text.
You cite Turretin in your paper, but have you seen this evidence that even he did not believe that the printed texts in his day were without error? Of course, Luther never accepted 1 John 5:7, the Comma Johanneum. Bengel and Tregelles represent some of the believing scholars who worked on the texts and text matters pre-1881 and who gave birth to textual criticism as we know it today (a believing version of it, however).
Erik
April 10, 2010
Just so you know, I know D.A. Waite. My father serves on the board of the DBS, and for a time I was a very devoted member of the DBS. I have also had discussions with many members of the DBS and find them to be good men of God. As previously stated, this post had nothing to do with the English text of the KJV or the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
PS, you have mistakenly assumed that the authors of this blog agree on everything. In point of fact, this blog intentionally represents several different points of view. Jason S, the ‘primary’ author is KJV-preferred as are a couple of the other contributors. Myself, I have a fondness for the language of the KJV and have no problem agreeing with you that it is an exceptional translation – possibly the greatest catalyst of the development of the English language in all of history.
But that has nothing to do with the topic of the original post. It was not the KJV itself that was discussed but the USE of the KJV and the development of the KJVO position, which was entirely against the original intentions of the translators who specifically pointed out in their translators’ preface that it was meant to be ‘one of’ and not ‘the one.’
Please stay on topic or carry on your discussions in another forum. There are plenty of posts on the text of the KJV and debates about Wilkinson, Otis Fuller, et al over at the King James Only? Debate Site.
JasonS
April 10, 2010
Erik,
PS is going a ’roundabout way, but he actually is on topic. He’s trying to show Bob that Wilkinson did not influence the US KJVO movement, so we should not take his imperialist ideas seriously.
He also wants to distance the US KJVO movement from the British KJVO’ers so that he can say there’s no connection between the two, so your theory is incorrect.
At least that’s what I’m getting from it.
Here’s a question for you, Erik. Perhaps it’ll help draw some of that together: Was Dean Burgon KJVO or Majority Text Only?
Erik
April 10, 2010
The DBS has little in common with Dean Burgon. But from what I’ve read, Burgon struck me as Majority Text-Superior (which in his day meant TR). I’m not sure I would even class him as what is called TR-only today.
To be honest, those classifications would not have applied in his day. He was an opponent of the Revised Version – which I think we can all agree was not that great of a translation, even of the texts it purported to be from.
In terms of his dealings with the first generation of published Critical Texts, he (rightly in my opinion) had issues with Westcott and Hort elevating the so called Alexandrian texts. Their almost absolute reliance on Alexandrinus and Vaticanus was, I think, a forgivable faddishness. To them, the discovery of these two texts was the BIGGEST THING that had happened in textual criticism in the past 200 years. They were reckless, but forgivably so (in my opinion).
But I digress…
The DBS itself recently split over the KJVO vs. TRO vs. anti-CT issue. For example, my father would say that he uses the KJV because it comes from the TR, and he opposes the CT because it deviates from the TR. So really, he is TRO, but since there has not been a translation of the TR in the same vein or of the same quality as the KJV, he continues to use the KJV. (He rejects the NKJV – and to be honest, I don’t care for it either. It is a patch on an old wineskin, in my opinion.)
Erik
April 10, 2010
I think of W-H’s admiration of the ‘Alexandrian’ texts something like the absolute fascination of the Christian community with the James Ossuary a few years ago. Everyone was excited that they had found a relic of Jesus’ half-brother James. People wrote all kinds of books on it. There are still people arguing for its veracity even though the perpetrator of the hoax has already come forward.
In the same way, W-H’s generation was endlessly fascinated with these newly discovered manuscripts and they dominated their thinking. Unlike the James Ossuary, these are legitimate texts that need to be considered in our study of the manuscripts available, so the parallel breaks down. But Burgon was one of the few churchmen to say, “Whoa! Let’s not rush into this and try to study these things objectively” rather than rushing to conclusions.
In that sense, I think he should be a model of Christian scholarship for all of us, from all camps.
Yin Sayne
April 10, 2010
FS Ferguson: “You cannot have it both ways with your friends here. One of you wants to present the KJVO movement as some localised American reaction to the writings of Benjamim Wilkinson in the 1980s. The other wants to present an unsubstantiated theory that the KJVO movement is actually rooted in 18th Century British Imperialism. Clearly you don’t do irony! Wilkinson Theory”
The dependence of KJBO in SDA Professor Ben Wilkinson’s writings–to the point of plagiarism, even–is not up for dispute. Ferguson doesn’t seem read up on Westcott and Hort, whom he tries to pin the blame on: http://www.westcotthort.com/faqs.html
There was a time when KJBOists framed their “truth” in J.T. Chick’s comic books or “scholarly” works that plagiarized from the SDA don. Nowadays, KJBOism can continue its spin and dance, but unlike its beginnings in the 1970s, it’s hard to keep the truth from outing on Internet sites like these.
Yin Sayne
April 10, 2010
Regarding KJBO’s British Imperialism, most of it is implicit, but have a peek at this Aussie’s “Pure Cambridge Edition” site: http://www.bibleprotector.com/index.htm
What’s not to love about the graphic symbolism?
Also, witness his unanswerable arguments for making everyone speak pure English: http://www.bibleprotector.com/archive_files/ENGLISH_NATIONAL_LANGUAGE.pdf
not.
Erik
April 10, 2010
We’ve seen the “Pure Cambridge Edition” stuff before. He is exceptionally vocal, although I don’t think the vast majority of KJVO people would agree with his assertions.
PS Ferguson
April 10, 2010
Yin Sayne
You are arguing Bob’s line, but even more inadequately. My arguments are attested by facts such as the writings of the TBS, Hills, Caesar Malan, Frederick Nolan that predate Wilkinson. Yours are based upon your own opinions. Have you or Bob surveyed all the thousands of KJVO Churches and Colleges worldwide to test your hypothesis? Both your assertions and Hayton’s are based upon mere speculation devoid of any empirical substance and which contradicts the clear evidence of historical fact. Does the fact that the vast majority of Adventists have embraced the Critical Text prove it is therefore in error? The same points could be marshalled against the futile attempt made by Erik to link the defence of the KJV’s underlying texts to a love for British Imperialism by Southern “Stars n’ Stripes” IFB churches! This illogical Post Hoc, Ergo Proper Hoc, if nothing else, demonstrate both lines of reasoning have made a bold attempt to break the world straw-clutching record!
I have read up on Westcott and Hort in their original writings. They are far from the Conservative scholars painted by JB Williams and Doug Kutilek. A quick survey of the 1860 Essays and Reviews and W&H involvement and sympathy for those involved should dispel such a notion. This is not the topic here so I am trying not to digress.
fundyreformed
April 10, 2010
Final reply by me to PJ Williams. The fact that leaders like Charles Spurgeon and R.A. Torrey, J. Frank Norris and W.B. Riley, Jack Hyles and John R. Rice were not KJV Only in their day. These men quoted from and used other versions along with the KJV. Only later did Hyles convert to a KJV Only position sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. Rice never converted and instead argued against the position. This proves the position in American fundamentalism is a new position.
An influence to that position’s rise to prominence is the imperialism or British-Israelism that Erik and others have been commenting about here and on the KJV Only debate blog. That influence is present in the works of Wilkinson and Fuller as well as Moorman, as I’ve demonstrated.
Wilkinson’s work was one major push to the American fundamentalists to wake up to this issue of two competing texts. I’m not discounting Hills and the Reformed position on the text as being a factor. You are discounting Wilkinson’s work as any factor. It was.
The works of Ray, Fuller and Ruckman, (which all lean heavily in important places on Wilkinson) were certainly instrumental in the rise of KJV Onlyism. I would bet you’d find the same kind of Americanism or imperialism present in the works of Ruckman and Riplinger, and we find a hint of it in Brandenburg’s comments above and a good representation of it in Kinney’s comments referenced above.
I will not respond further to you on this subject in this thread. Sorry, we’ll have to disagree here.
In Christ,
Bob
john book
April 11, 2010
Well, where is Chicken Little???
I say we should burn at the stake anyone who is not a KJVO advocate! Plain and simple. As the nose on your face…which should be chopped off if you don’t agree with me! All those other versions are tools of Satan and you will all burn in Hell’s fire if you don’t mend your sinful ways!!!
And for gosh sakes! Everyone knows the KJV Bible is the hidden lever that causes great nations to exercise imperialic thoughts in it’s leaders and citizenry! Anyone who thinks differently should be boiled in oil as soon as possible!!
Why, we all know that any white male who came out of anywhere in Europe and moved his slimy way up into England, then proceeded to institute the KJV of the Bible into the English government for the sole purpose of defeating other nations just to make one great big English place on Earth… so everyone could say, “The sun never sets on England or the KJV…”
From there we all know the KJV landed on American shores and took firm hold of all it encountered there! This included the Native Americans as well as any African slaves that got caught up in the westward movement to make the white man greatest….
As for drums in church……..well! It goes without saying… Drums are tools of the Devil too. It is a White man’s fiction that drums originated in dark Africa, but if you carefully trace back in time; drums were really invented in Russia. In fact, there are Russian military folks who have come out over here in the US who will tell you that they have been paying the Blacks here in the States to play lots of drum music to our teens all these years so they would be sexually aggressive with each other.
As for finding places where girls “put out” to be the place where there is loud drum rhythms…. I must beg to differ………. in fact, I must beg to laugh my head off!!!! How goofy, silly can you get??? Everyone knows if they would just admit it, that it is easy to find girls who put out in just about any Christian activity… especially sans drums! If you boys have missed out on this bonanza… well, it is no wonder you’ve got your hat cocked wrong on KJVO stuff….hahahahahahahahaha……
What a bunch of MARROONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get a life!
Erik
April 11, 2010
I’m gonna assume this involved a lot of sarcasm.
john book
April 11, 2010
Ah, Erik, need you even ask? My post made about as much sense as some of the other posts I’ve read here.
Why on earth are we sitting around our key-boards playing, “My dad’s bigger/stronger/smarter/etc…than your dad?
Show me in the text of the KJV where it says that the KJV,(or any other version), is best for thee and me! I doubt thou cant’s do so. I do not think the original Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic etc… would let us think KJV is Ichi bon either.
Ok, let’s have a HOLY WAR..again… Baptists are better than Lutherans…well, poor example… ok….Baptists are better than…uh…Methodists…there we go… now, let’s send out 457 posts on that one, heh?
Each denomination fits some folks just fine…
Different Bibles work for some … not for others…
I happen to like NIV or NKJV and others depending on what I’m doing. Why don’t I read KJV? I don’t like talking like Shakespere…. so what?????
Like I said in my first post on this topic… you guys need to get out in the sun a little more, talk to people, (Not cathode-ray tubes), and listening to other’s ideas without demanding who is right on the little things.
Save your battling over important stuff, like; Is Obama really a US citizen?
Erik
April 11, 2010
Thanks for sharing, John.
In the future if you choose to post on this site, please attempt to present your thoughts in a mature fashion.
john book
April 11, 2010
Well, Erik,
Even though I was really into the sarcasm in my posts, I was under the impression I was making a more mature point than most of the other writers.
I’m sure most of the folks writing in this blog are sincere to the max… as was I …I just express it differently.
Some of the posters seem to like to “see themselves talk”…
Good for them. Free country, etc…
My point, which seems to have slipped by the main-stream here; when there are so many good, healthy and valuable questions in the Bible to talk about, why bicker over one person’s personal choice over someone else’s.
I most humbly apologize for my immature scribbles. Even at age 60 I know I can learn from the masters. I would hate to think a lighter, humorous touch has offended anyone’s touchy egos.
Erik
April 11, 2010
John, we appreciate your point and I don’t see how anyone would have missed it. You conveyed it very succinctly. And I agree. My original post was much more in line with the idea that some people use the KJV for the wrong reasons, but if you read my other posts you will see that I am very passionate about uniting around the foundational beliefs of our faith and not bickering. It saddens me that so many people took the post to be an opportunity for such fervent disagreement.
Please understand that your levity was not offensive to me but I could see where some of the posters could be offended and we want to afford everyone the same level of respect.
john book
April 13, 2010
I’m going to try this again… less sarcasm…more maturity… I’ve got to admit, I’m NOT a Bible or history scholar, although you could say I’m a Bible toting Baptist,ex-missionary who has always been interested in most any kind of history.
(Except for sports)
My Uncle used to play golf with Barry Goldwater, (And we all know what a Bible wizard he was…), and one of my aunts was a member of the DAR. IF any of that makes my words worth more… well, good deal…
Please all those who read me here… I’m not grinding any axes!! But do you really think we all can, “…unite around fundamental beliefs of our faiths and not bicker?”
That’s like John Lennon hoping there would be no more war. As long as there are people, there will be bickering….(and war). Many of us Fundamentalists believe much of the same things… however, we don’t always agree with what color of hymnals we should use…(get the point? So expressing opinions and agreeing to disagree or kinda agree…makes more sense to me.)
The idea of the KJV being a tool of Imperialism kinda leaves me cold… I believe the Imperialists would have used any good Bible, (or coloring book), that they could get their hands on and were able to read.
Please correct me here…I really do wish to understand this debate. Are we really not supposed to use the KJV because the Imperialists used it? Isn’t that kinda like tossing out the baby with the bathwater?
I’ve stumbled across you guys’ blog and liked what you all seemed to be doing here… I’d hoped I could learn a lot from reading and asking questions of you really smart guys. I do hope this post doesn’t offend anyone!
fundyreformed
April 13, 2010
No offense taken here, John. Thanks for dropping by. We here at this blog see the use of the KJV only as a problem hindering the unity of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. This post is exploring the possibility that one of the driving factors behind the KJV use was an imperialist kind of mentality. It’s not the be all end all argment in the debate. For many other considerations check out our team KJV Only debate blog: http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com.
Thanks again for finding us and I hope you’ll stop in from time to time.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
JasonS
April 13, 2010
John,
If I remember correctly, you and I have talked over on my other blog, PastoralMusings.com . We are not against the use of the KJV. In fact, I preach from it six times per week.
We are opposed to the idea that the KJV is the only translation of God’s Word in English (or as some would have it, the only translation in any language).
I hope you’ll continue to read and comment here.
We welcome you.
Jason
john book
April 19, 2010
So, Jason, I’ll write here, directly to you and those who are put off by what or how I say it can ignore, please. I’m about at my maximum maturity in writing at this point.
IF you haven’t gathered, my prior posts sarcastically indicated the KJV should NOT be considered the only Bible of value…but rather one of many.
If you go with KJVO…which revision or re-write of it are you choosing from? I read a while back there were dozens of them before the “final” ONE.
Being an ex-missionary in Japan, I guess no one in Japan gets to read a “correct” KJBO Bible. The KJV JAPANESE TRANSLATION is pretty much the rule there…it is not translated verbatim or literally because some English words and thoughts CAN’T be put into Japanese and vice-versa. Most Asian and S. Pacific countries have the same problem. IF KJV is the only version of truth, justice and the Heavenly way, I feel sorry for the Asians, etc…
Then there is this imperialism thing….
It seems small to have people of this day and age, (Politically Correct and other retch…), judging the workings of past generations, such as the Victorians or their fore-bearers. (It’s bad enough to judge a people by such different standards in time, but a Bible???) I’m not one to believe imperialism is a dirty word…just not a good one these days.
A lot a bad, stupid stuff was done in the name of imperialism or nationalism or patriotism, (any more -isms out there?). On the other hand, there were some good things done in those same names.
But, can’t anyone see…that is the way people believed and thought in those days. It was the nature of man to believe bigger, stronger was GOOD, which equated to bigger, stronger GOOD white people and bigger, stronger GOOD white people’s GOOD countries, etc….
Why, through-out history, have there been so many wars; except for greedy nationalist, imperialists and patriots? Of course, these evil, white guys with bigger and better weapons than the non-white nationals in other countries are just that, evil…(Right?) Gosh! That would be a ridiculous idea if you are living in the times of Imperialism!!!
(Next you get to have wars with other big white guys to see who is the biggest and strongest so the winner there can have the loser’s littler, weaker, not-white countries…)
In those days, besides greed, which is still with us, the “big white guys” were saving the world for more big white guys cause big white guys knew what to do with the world. I mean, who would really want to live in the jungle in a grass hut???
Besides such logical thinking, the big white guys seriously believed they were helping the non-white little guys in the countries being taken over and run by the big white guys. (Put shoes on their feet, and educate them for heaven sakes!!)
Since so many of the posters here like to drop names, I’ll add a couple of my own.
In Joe Pearce’s biography of G.K. Chesterton, “Wisdom and Innocence”,(pg. 9,10), Pearce states, “Echoing the words of Nietzsche, many Victorians considered themselves ‘beyond good and evil’. They were too modern to be moral.”
Pearson go on to say, ” The truth is that for most men about this time Imperialism, or at least patriotism, was a substitute for religion. Men believed in the British Empire precisely because they had nothing else to believe in.”
For the most part all these “isms” were good and fine things for folks back before, during and after the Victorians. If you WEREN’T imperialistic or racist, something was wrong with you!
I am kind of insulted how our ancestors are judged by our modern, much more liberal, PC values.
So, why the big deal about not using a certain Bible because some folks took over the world while one kind of Bible was most popular? (Forgive my silliness again, but that is like saying we can’t wear shoes today because nasty imperialists wore shoes when they went to war to concur non-whites.)
Are not the words of the Bible God breathed and true? Do you think God was an Imperialist in the “old days” but later changed His mind when PC became popular?
Why do Conservatives and Fundamentalists have to get into a tizzy over which Bible to use and why it has to be the same for everyone?
Lastly, I am kind of taken aback when a group of sound and profound fundamental and conservative Christians get together and debate an issue like KJVO…. and then label ah, shall we say, a less sophisticated poster, “immature” because he doesn’t write like the rest of you?
Thanks for you welcome Jason. Its been real.
JasonS
April 19, 2010
John,
I had a nice long reply and WordPress ate it.
Never the less, I hope we have all learned from this exchange.
I welcome you to continue to return and contribute.
I shall leave the rest of the replying to Erik, as your comments are mostly relevant to his post.
Erik
April 19, 2010
John,
Honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. You are mashing up the post and the comments and lashing out in all directions all at once. I really don’t understand what the issue is here. We’re not King James Only or trying to draw others into the debate. This blog is for those who wish to dialogue about things like this. A thought occurred to me, and I wrote it for discussion.
You said:
To be honest, I’m insulted that you assume we’re liberals or have so-called “PC” values. We’re not trying to be PC. We’re doing out best to understand why things are the way they are for certain people; and that means we have to question things. You’re judging our characters, our thinkings, our worldviews and, to be perfectly honest, our faith, by your perception of us from a couple of posts online.
If you don’t agree; you’re free not to read our posts or post comments. At this point, I feel like you continue to go in sarcastic circles trying to convince us of things we don’t need convincing of.
Thank you for your thoughts; thanks for dropping by. We wish you the best.
Joshman
April 22, 2010
Solid doctrine cannot fully exist where kjv onlyism reigns
Bobby Cantrell
December 16, 2010
I prefer to use a Bible that refers to a donkey as an ass, and has other great terms like b*st*ard, “them that p*ss*th against the wall, wh*rem*ng*r. These liberals like W&H are taking this privilege away!