A Timeline of the KJV-Only Movement

[John of Japan]

How about we get back on topic?

Opening Post:

"I am compiling a timeline of the KJV-Only movement....note that this is designed to be an historical study, not a discussion on the merits of the movement. I will ignore posts that go the wrong direction on this."

Hey, this is my thread! I'm pretty much done with my timeline, so I asked myself, can it hurt to widen the discussion a little? And I answered myself, naw, go ahead.

 

[John of Japan]

(1817) Resolutions of the Tennessee Association of Baptists

[context: Methodist promotion of John Wesley's translation of the New Testament]

"Answer...the Old and New Testament translated by order of King James the 1st, has been always the standard for the Baptists".

"Answer: We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not to be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them"

That's a pretty radical standard. But pursuant to the OP, did it start an actual movement, or was it a one off statement?

 

[Logos1560]

That's a pretty radical standard. But pursuant to the OP, did it start an actual movement, or was it a one off statement?

It seems to be a rare usual claim by one group of Baptists. Baptists have not always considered the KJV the standard. Many early Baptists pointed out examples of episcopal bias in the KJV, and their early creeds appealed to the original-language Scriptures to support their view on congregational church government. Many early Baptists in the 1600's likely used editions of the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320). Baptists in England in the 1600’s had based at least a portion of their doctrine of church government on the original language text at Acts 14:23 with clear support from the Latin translation of Erasmus, the Latin translation of Beza, and the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In 1842, Baptists in America produced a revision of the KJV that was printed several years. It used "immerse" instead of "baptize" in the NT.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm thinking primarily of the younger generation (younger than me). I believe anybody can learn the "thees" and "thous" (and even other antiquated uses of words we employ today). But the question that comes to my mind is "why?".

Because of the accuracy of the translation and the beauty of the language. I once had a Japanese salesman come to our door in Asahikawa, and we got to talking about the Bible. He was a Buddhist, but had read the Japanese Bible, and so he commented, "A holy book should have dignity and beauty in the language. Your Bible does not have that." By way of comparison, the sutras in Japanese Buddhism are often in classical Chinese! What he probably had read was the Shinkaiyaku, the Japanese version financed by the Lockman Foundation and translated by the NASB method. It is too literal and wooden.

The modern English version with the best literary English, IMO, is the NIV. But it has many inaccuracies, and I would not use it as a church version, though it is pleasant to read.

Our youth are no less deserving of a Bible in their vernacular than were those who lived centuries ago.

I don't think this is "one size fits all." Every church has its own culture. If the church's culture includes homeschooled and Christian school kids in its mix, they will take the KJV quite easily.

In our church there is no mandate for the KJV, and men often come to my small group table with other versions. My burden is not to correct their use of this or that version, but to make sure we all understand what the Scripture is saying.

And, I've seen too many kids (actually, young men) struggle with the KJV. I suspect a lot has to do with patience. But whether external or self inflicted it's there. Regardless, I believe God's Word is best communicated in the language of the people reading His Word.

True enough. But I believe the KJV is quite understandable, not that different from modern English except in some of the vocabulary. The syntax is the same and most of the semantic content is the same. Once a newbie understands the vocabulary, it's not that hard.

In Japanese we have the Classical Japanese Bible (CJB). I did some personal research once comparing the KJV and the CJB based on the semantic content, and decided that the CJB was 2 1/2 times more difficult to understand by a modern reader than the KJV.

The last physical Bible I purchased was a KJV (my copy was worn out). So my opinion has nothing to do with the translation itself so much as wanting a better translation that "meets people where they are".

Got it.

 

[John of Japan]

It seems to be a rare usual claim by one group of Baptists. Baptists have not always considered the KJV the standard. Many early Baptists pointed out examples of episcopal bias in the KJV, and their early creeds appealed to the original-language Scriptures to support their view on congregational church government. Many early Baptists in the 1600's likely used editions of the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320). Baptists in England in the 1600’s had based at least a portion of their doctrine of church government on the original language text at Acts 14:23 with clear support from the Latin translation of Erasmus, the Latin translation of Beza, and the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In 1842, Baptists in America produced a revision of the KJV that was printed several years. It used "immerse" instead of "baptize" in the NT.

Excellent post. Thank you for the info

William Carey and his team always translated baptizo with "immerse" in the many translations he did, and we have done so in our new Lifeline Japanese NT.

 

[JesusFan]

What happened to Yeshua1? You began as JesusFan years ago, then you switched to Dechaser1, then to Yeshua1, and now back to JesusFan. How many of those monikers are still active?

Could only find this name still active as been off this board many months due to life and work changes but now back looks like been some changes since gone!

 

[JesusFan]

It seems to be a rare usual claim by one group of Baptists. Baptists have not always considered the KJV the standard. Many early Baptists pointed out examples of episcopal bias in the KJV, and their early creeds appealed to the original-language Scriptures to support their view on congregational church government. Many early Baptists in the 1600's likely used editions of the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The 1677 Second London Confession of Faith by Baptists maintained that a bishop or elder is “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself,” and it cited Acts 14:23 in the margin with the comment “See the original” (Lumpkin, p. 287; McGlothin, Baptist Confessions, p. 266). The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith by Baptists retained the same words that had been based on Acts 14:23: “to be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 1320). Baptists in England in the 1600’s had based at least a portion of their doctrine of church government on the original language text at Acts 14:23 with clear support from the Latin translation of Erasmus, the Latin translation of Beza, and the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In 1842, Baptists in America produced a revision of the KJV that was printed several years. It used "immerse" instead of "baptize" in the NT.

There was no difference between what we Baptists held regarding translations, as since was accepted pretty much by all that only the originals were inspired and inerrant, that one could use any English translation rendered off those Greek/Hebrews texts as long as no altering/changing main doctrines, and its only when KJVO arrived, that churched started to singled out just KJV as only real Baptist version to have and use.

 

[Dr. Bob]

its only when KJVO arrived, that churched started to singled out just KJV as only real Baptist version to have and use.

My home church in Minneapolis housed Central Baptist Theological Seminary which strongly promoted original language study. When I took classes, the 1901 ASV was preferred for its reflection of the Greek verb structure in English. (To me it read like an IKEA instruction in phrases I thought were NOT vernacular English).

The church promoted the Old Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford KJV). Listening to teachers and pastors was fun as they "poked" good-naturedly at one or the other (the one they were not using).

Before the radical KJVOnly debates of the 70's and 80's that resulted in people actually believing the KJV (whichever they thought best of the 100+ variations) and CORRECTED the originals. If we could use the word "heresy" on the BB, I would. But we can't, so I won't.