Saturday, June 17, 2006

Assuming the KJVO Position

Judging from the turn that our last post took towards the canker of what is commonly known as exclusive King James Onlyism, we decided to attempt to flesh out some more thoughts on this crucial topic. **********************************

Knowing full well that we will be accused of beating a dead horse so to speak, I'd like to again address the topic that so pervades the teachings and philosophies of FBCH/HAC---the new doctrine of King James Onlyism. It is one that will no doubt be touched upon often here as it is one of the most prominent "new doctrines" espoused by both First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College.

What we have seen exhibited lately here at Bread and Circuses can only be described as "assuming the position" of the proverbial ostrich with its head buried firmly within the sand of hysteric fundamentalism. We do not say this to condemn those caught in this error--both Matthew and I were at one time King James Only nuts as wide-eyed knuckleheads at FBCH. Sadly many who are in the KJVO camp admit that they have never even read any books that give the other side of the translation story--in their mind there is no need to investigate this matter any further--Riplinger, Ruckman, Grady, Fuller, and Hyles said it and that is good enough for them.

I still struggle to process this fact but during my last semester at HAC, I took Bible Doctrines class. I reckon that they saw the need to at least pretend that they teach these doctrines, hence the class. The very first "doctrine" that the instructor presented was that of KJVOnlyism. To state it mildly, I was aghast. It is well-known that they not only dogmatically proclaim this new doctrine but that they will and do separate regarding it.

In the recent comment sections of our blog, the topic has been brought to the forefront by some well-meaning pro-FBCHers. Concurrently, much misinformation has been displayed at the forefront as well. We have noticed remarks from these folks who would equate our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with the KJV that they carry to church via the first chapter of John's gospel account...? Both Matthew and myself have sustained verbal injury by those who would label us as "liberal" by our view of Biblical inerrancy. Basically, since we are not KJVOnly, therefore in the minds of some we deny the inerrancy of Scripture...? My brethren, misinformation abounds, indeed.

It has been stated by some commenting here that "Fundamentalists have always believed that the Bible was without error." Who would deny this fact? The Bible, as given to the original penman was without error and given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Where in the New Testament or Old for that matter are we reminded that it would be exclusively without error and perfectly translated in the Authorized Version of A.D. 1611? We at Bread and Circuses have yet to find this passage in our Bibles, King James Version or otherwise. Perchance it is contained in the apocryphal books of the original 1611 AV?

The question is put forth, "Have you ever seen the originals?" Quite simply and honestly the answer is an obvious "no". Howbeit, I have utterly failed to recognize the connection that this question shares with the issue that is at hand. Again, what does the Bible say about its own preservation and inspiration? Please do not hesitate to return your answers with Scripture references. There is one hitch---context WILL count. This will no doubt serve as a devastating blow to the "Jesus= 1611 KJV" crowd.

What part of "God has preserved His Word in the totality of extant manuscripts and resulting translations" do we not understand? Is our God so small that He can no longer use even the errors of fallen man to ultimately preserve His written Word for believers today? Indeed, he can and has, and I rejoice greatly in this fact.

We claim the original autographs to be perfect due to the Scripture's own teaching on inspiration. The original human authors wrote their respective portions of Holy Writ under direct influence of the Holy Spirit of God. Edward, et al, THIS is the historic position regarding the Holy Scriptures.

In one recent exchange, a pro-FBCHer stated "If I honestly believed the way some of you do here about the Scriptures, I would throw in the towel and live it up." What great faith verbalized! I would advise this gentleman against reading the Da Vinci Code---if we here at B&C have shaken your faith, Dan Brown's heretical novelty most certainly will! I praise God that He is bigger than our all too often little faith.

Here are some questions to ponder...Where did God promise to preserve a 17th century English translation in Scripture? Is there a perfectly translated Bible version in every known language? Is the LORD a respecter of persons--favoring only English speaking peoples with His "perfect" man made translation in the KJV? Are there any Bible scholars with well respected earned degrees or sound Bible expositors that espouse this teaching of King James Onlyism? If your answer is "yes", please list them for us. Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible is perfectly translated and free of any error? If your answer is "yes", which edition of the KJV is the perfect one?

Any takers?



rabbi-philosopher said...

Josh, your post is very good but you assume, probably wrongly, that theirs is a logic issue; i.e., once the illogic of their impossible position is observed, they'll drop their blind adherence to the KJV.

But for them, it's not a logic issue; it's an issue of faith and particularly an issue of loyalty! "If Jack Schaap stands by the KJV then I must also come hell or high water." When you reach that point of loyalty and belief you just close your eyes to any of the logical absurdities of your position because you don't want to know them.

So far we've heard from "Ed" and Jeri. I think their basic stance on being KJVonly boils down to this. "I believe it because I believe it. I will not read nor wrestle with anything that might give me pause."

I certainly have, so far, been totally underwhelmed by the "well-fed" of the Hyles Consortium.

Mike Y said...


I came across the quote out of Bill Grady's Final Authority:

"'Tis sad but true: the more we learn, the less we do. Striking a proper balance between zeal and knowledge continues to plague the people of God. The question has often been asked, 'When was the last time you saw a theologian who could preach or an evangelist who could read and write?' However, even though this is true, the conviction of preservation for propagation has a consistent, historic tradition."

I think this type of thinking is what permeates the minds of those wrapped up in KJVO.

Unfortunately, Grady jumps to a conclusion that is inconsistent with the word of God. We're commanded to study so that we can impart truth to those who hear us and so that we're not ashamed before God for imparting false doctrine.

But in helping to create the KJVO attitude at HAC, Grady had to give credit to the Textus Receptus as the preserved word of God, by which the KJV was derived. Since the TR didn't come about till 1633, I would like to give him benefit of the doubt that he was referring to the Stephanus Text of 1550 and to the Beza text.

Anyway, he's gone from there. And now, without his form of scholarship, those that remain now dismiss even the TR as viable and preserved.

If you follow their logic through, we'd have be concerned about those between the 1st and 17th century. And we have to be concerned about those with bibles in foreign languages.

True evangelists are also theologians. We have to be in order to reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. Declaring them to be mutually exclusive is highly irresponsible. And thinking the only way to Heaven is through the English KJV is just plain dumb.

Historically, we've recorded more true revivals via the Geneva bible than the KJV. In fact, I don't think there was one recorded in the 1st Great Awakening that resulted from the KJV. Hmm.

Keep up the great work, I know you have many loved ones caught up in this.


reglerjoe said...

Circus Dudes,

I think one of the reasons that so many are KJVO is that they take a wooden literal sense to the "every word" argument for preservation, i.e. "if man needs every word, then we need an every word Bible" (ya ever hear that one?). Of course, since no two translations match up word-for-word, then only one can be right. So pick yer pony and ride with blinders on!

What aided my transition from KJVO to KJV preferred was those pesky italicized words in the KJV. They were not put into the KJV because they were the word-for-word translation, but because the KJV translators ADDED them to clarify meaning to English readers.

Somebody help me now...isn't that called dynamic equivalence? I could be wrong.

PT Barnum said...

Yes, Reglrjoe, that would be dynamic equivalence. Fact is that in order to translate from one language to another there HAS to be some freedom to convey nuance--the KJV is not free of this and the italicized words are a great place to start. It is amazing that most IFBx would praise the likes of John Wycliffe and William Tyndale for bringing the Bible into the language of every plowboy, but will demonize anyone who attempts the same task today. The craziness needs to stop and as the good Rabbi said it is more a case of blind loyalty than any form of logic.


Joshua R said...

rabbi, I understand where you are coming from. You are absolutely correct regarding a sizeable portion of the Hyles constituency that theirs is a problem of blind loyalty/idolatry.

We still are holding out that among IFBxers, there are still some who are willing to look at what is presented and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance in the matter.

From my personal experience, I would have to note that your opinion is well-founded. I had not read or studied the matter for myself except for some of the writings of the more vocal KJVO advocates---when exposed to more balanced literature available regarding translations, I completely saw the light so to speak and changed my stated position to that of historic orthodoxy.

Mike Y said...


The problem with their notion of preservation is that it's distorted in every fashion. What was Christ talking about in Matt 5:18? He was telling his Jewish disciples that he did not come to abolish the Mosaic law. As far as they were to be concerned, it would not pass away in any fashion.

Then, when you actually look at the Greek, it doesn't say one "jot" or "tittle". It says iota, which is the smallest letter in the Greek. And it says keraia, which is a horn. In the Hebrew, there aren't vowels and punctuation. It's all consonants. Each letter is distinuished from others by its "horns". Later, the Masorah came up with a system of punctuation and vowels that would allow the Hebrew text to be properly interpreted by others.

Without their contribution how would you read "BR"? Depending on the context and oral tradition, it could be "bar", "bear", "boar", etc.

But they were very careful about modifying the text of scripture. So, instead of inserting such marks into the text, they introduced the kethib and quere-- "what is written" and "what is read". The kethib was the original text. The quere was written in the margin and is what was read outloud.

So, the text might have YWH (Yaweh), but the quere might read Elohim.

What's the significance of all this? Well, one could make the argument that this is primarily applicable for context. I think it's more than that.

I believe the promise of preservation applies primarily to the context and secondarily to the very grammar and punctuation.

If this is the case, it is utterly impossible to keep to this with an English bible. The English doesn't utilize an iota subscript to denote the dative case (case of the direct object). So, how can it therefore preserve it.

For the KJVO they can make the argument that their text reads jot and tittle. Okay, show me an English jot and an English tittle.

They're just illogical and argumentative on the subject.


rabbi-philosopher said...

Hey Josh,
I'd love to hear what influenced you to begin to question the KJVonly position since you were in an environment where questioning the status quo was not encouraged?

How old were you when you began to have doubts?
Was there one or two men or books that began to shake your tree?

How did you move from "that to this?" jb

Joshua R said...


During my Hammond years, I basically bought into the whole KJVO thing hook-line-& sinker, unfortunately. I used to own a book by Gail Riplinger entitled _New Age Bible Versions_. Frankly, I never read the book through as it always seemed conspiratorial and bizarre. It just did not seem readable from a common sense standpoint.

About the time that I began to cross-examine some questionable items regarding Jack Hyles and his ministry, I was beginning to question also the rabid KJVO-position.. Every KJVO proponent I had read material from seemed absolutely nutty and conspiratorial, and the first book that I read to change my postiton was entitled _From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man_.

I have read several others since then, and the rest is history. :)

PT Barnum said...


You proffer some very interesting questions--here are my takes:

Where did God promise to preserve a 17th century English translation in Scripture? He never did.

Is there a perfectly translated Bible version in every known language? No.

Is the LORD a respecter of persons--favoring only English speaking peoples with His "perfect" man made translation in the KJV? Absolutely not.

Are there any Bible scholars with well respected earned degrees or sound Bible expositors that espouse this teaching of King James Onlyism? None that I am aware of--I could be wrong and would love for someone to offer some sort of list of any that come to mind.

Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible is perfectly translated and free of any error? No.

We have God's Word and our translations are perfect in as much as they reflect the originals. This new heresy of KJVOnlyism needs to be snuffed out completely--it is one of the most divisive issues to ever come on the scene. This is a blight that needs to be exposed to the light of God's Word.


maranatha man said...

Throughout history there have been literally hundreds of Bibles translated into various foreign languages. To say the 1611 "English" version is the one and only perfect version is ridiculous. Should a person hold the position that the KJV is the inspired Word of God you must believe the translators themselves were inspired.
I was in this movement in the late seventies and eighties. I always had a problem with KJV onlyism.
By the way, it wasn't until around 1990 that Brother Hyles came out to the KJV only position. Read his old commentary on Revelation.

HacerMan said...

Montan mansaid:

it wasn't until around 1990 that Brother Hyles came out to the KJV only position.

Docter Hyelspreeched the new sarmen "lojeeck must pruve thee King Jmes Bible" the sam yere as Goege Arwells' famus boook, you r estamashun off times are alittl bitty of ov the reel-time acshuality.

Edward said...

Dr. Hyles was for the King James well before the 1990's. The fact that you would even write that shows how much you know about the man. Dr. Hyles always warned about the new translations coming on the scene--in 1984 he began to really expose them and it was not long before he was in the battle of his live. Dr. Hyles stood up to those who would deny that we have a perfect Bible in our hands today--here is our logic on the matter...if I don't have a perfect Bible, how do I know where it is trustworthy and where it is faulty? It could be faulty where it speaks about salvation and heaven...or it could be faulty where it speaks of the ressurection or cavalry? I have God's Word today and I am looking at a copy right now that is 100% perfect in every way...this is what real fundamentalists believe. I will not apologize for beleiving that God says what he means and means what he says. Ed

maranatha man said...


Did we have the Bible before 1611?

D.J. Cimino said...

Um, Edward... Which edition are you looking at? I'll betcha money it's not the AV 1611!

Mike Y said...


Why are you trying to rationalize with Edward? He's not rational at all. I venture to guess my 6yr old is more spiritual than he.

He knows he's inconsistent. He knows all the variations that exist between the 1611 and the later versions of the KJV. And he knows Christians prior to 1611 had the bible.

He's simply being argumentative, illogical, spiteful and a sower of discord. He is a perfect example of what happens when you cast pearls before swine.

Please, believe the scriptures you have and live according to them. You can point out what you will with him, but to no effect. At this point, unless God regenerates his heart and mind, nothing else you say will make a difference.

Bear in mind that while each of us was a KJVO person, at some point, God did open our eyes. And I suspect none of you were extreme as to believe there was no bible before 1611. Don't confuse the work of illumination with regeneration.

Just some friendly advise. We should move on to those who desire to grow closer to God.


Edward said...

Mountain Man,



I am holding the perfect one right now. Only punctuation and spelling were corrected from the 1611 since there were yet no rules on such things. I am surprised that you do not already know these things--you give the impression that you are a somewhat learned man...I guess you fooled me.

You are all cracking me up with this circular reasoning. Here is a question for you fellas: How do you know what parts of the Bible are perfect and which parts are false? Was it the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?
This is better than a National Geographic special! Ed

D.J. Cimino said...

Ed, let me quote from our friend Bob Hayton...

Edward, these are changes to the text... That means you have to choose which edition is the "perfect" one... here's the quote:

"Here is a brief example of differences that I could come up with at work (my primary source for this info is at home right now). The list below contains the 1611 reading first, and the modern KJV (most are based off of the 1769 edition by Blayney, although there are some differences) next.

Josh. 13:29 "Manasseh" to "the children of Manasseh"

Deut. 26:1 "the LORD" to "the LORD thy God"

Ps. 69:32 "seek good" to "seek God"

Jer. 49:1 "inherit God" to "inherit Gad"

Matt. 16:16 "Thou art Christ" to "Thou art the Christ"

Mark 10:18 "there is no man good, but one" to "there is none good but one"

1 Cor. 4:9 "approved unto death" to "appointed unto death"

1 John 5:2 "hath not the Son" to "Hath not the Son of God"
[the above list was from pg. 90 in One Bible Only? edited by Beacham and Bauder]

Ruth 3:15 ends with "he went into the city" in the 1611 but "she went into the city" in the modern KJV. [This becomes especially ineresting as "he" is the Masoretic Text reading and "she" is the Masoretic Text's marginal reading (called the qere)]

Ephesians ends with the word "amen" in modern KJVs but in the 1611 there is no "amen". [In the Scrivener's TRs I have there is no "amen" either!]

Another interesting case is John 8:6 the last clause "as though he heard them not" was placed in italics in the 1769 and subsequent editions, but in 1611 it was not in italics.

Even if some KJVO-ists try to get around this predicament by simply siding with the 1769 edition as THE KJV, they are faced with difficulties. Today there are several different KJVs out there and it is hard to know where their texts came from. For instance, there are differences between the Oxford edition (around the 1760s or 70s/80s) and the Cambridge 1769 edition, as well as differences built up through time by competing publishers. Anyways, 2 Tim. 3:17 says "throughly" in some KJVs and "thoroughly" in others. There is some passage in Proverbs or somewhere which says "she" in one and "he" in another. There are a few other differences of this type out there, but I cannot remember anymore."

Taken from:

Mike Hess said...


Joshua presented you with the questions and you and your cohorts at FBCH have failed to answer the questions at hand. Instead, you insist riding the perennial hobby horse of whether or not we have a perfect translation (which cannot exist). Your defense is far from a plausible apologetic for the KJVO position. Instead, you sound more like a defense witness in the O.J. Simpson case. Provide details to the questions asked Ed or just concede the fact that your reasoning is complete nonsense that you have taken in with your heavy dose of kool-aid.

Have a fabulous day!!!

reglerjoe said...

The following are translational mistakes I've found in the KJV:

2Ki 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.

2Ch 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Jehoiachin was actually 18, not 8, and ,no, these are not two different Jehoiachins.

This is just one example of some translational mistakes. But we know that, though names, geneologies and stats may be affected, doctrine is not. There is enough manuscript evidence to show that mistakes in translations have not affected doctrine.

Again, Ed, you insist that the fundamentalist view is that your KJV translation is completely without error. Yet, it has been made known to you that historic fundamentalists such as Spurgeon and others, do not share the same view. They held to the originals being perfect, but our translations being reliable. This view should not shake your faith. It is the historic fundamentalist view.

maranatha man said...


While you did not elaborate, you just admitted that we had the Bible before 1611. Case closed!!!!

I know where you are in this movement. I was there too! My heart goes out to you! I was thirty-three years old when I realized that I could read and think for myself! What a glorious day!

I encourage you to lay aside your presupposition (KJV only) and give "equal time" to research of both sides of this issue.

I would never question your love for the Word of God and appreciate your zeal for Christ. Nonetheless, I hope you will research this issue for yourself and come to your "own" conclusion. God bless you bro!

D.J. Cimino said...

Edward... you wrote:

"Only punctuation and spelling were corrected from the 1611 since there were yet no rules on such things. I am surprised that you do not already know these things--you give the impression that you are a somewhat learned man...I guess you fooled me."

Now that you are faced with the facts, what do you have to say about the different editions of the KJV? The issue isn't about who is "smart" or "learned". I would fall short in that category for sure.

The issue is about spreading discord and breaking fellowship over something as crazy as the KJO issue. The facts were presented to you. Instead of sarcasm, interact with the facts.

D.J. Cimino said...

I see Edward has decided not to interact with the facts presented. Not surprising.

Last week I was asked (forced) to resign from a missions board of directors because of the KJO issue. It is sad that it had to come to this. The pastor that discussed the issue with me said that the devil is in the issue since God is not the author of confusion. In my mind he was condemning himself. I am not the one causing confusion (or dividing the body of Christ) with the issue... the KJO side is!!

Imagine how confusing it is for a new convert to met a KJO person and have the faith that they have in their NKJV, NASB, ESV, (or whatever it is) taken away by KJO. Then the KJO person gives them an English translation that reads as if you spoke and thought like they did 400 years ago. Talk about confusing!!

rabbi-philosopher said...

Bummer D.J. sigh. It's going to take some years for the Presidents and theologians of sufficiently, well informed and Bible centered independent Baptist seminaries to finally "stick a fork" in Satan's KJO attack upon God's people.

PT Barnum said...

Good pastor and I had coffee the other day and he said that he thinks that his generation will be the last of the historic IFBs to be KJVP--he is 66 years old. He sees a change coming soon to the NASB/NKJB/ESV. I was pleased to hear this but unfortunately the loud minority will continue to squeel about this issue. As long as they continue to spread this heresy we here at B&C will expose their error.

I say let the inbreeds keep yelling about it--they are loosing recruits at an alarming rate and there is no end in sight! I only pray that this blog will be used to solidify Christians' belief in the perfectly inspired originals and ALL the faithful translations we are blessed with.


reglerjoe said...


For clarity, when you say "inbreeds", are you referring to the practice of a college hiring its graduates exclusively (almost), and not making a reference to someone's genetic makeup?

Also, are we certain that "they are losing recruits at an alarming rate"? I always hear that HAC enrollment increases yearly, and I'd like to think my sources are credible...and this inspite of new HAC clone colleges opening almost yearly.

I may be introducing a new topic, but I don't think this brand of fundamentalism is dying out. I think we sometimes mistake their absence from mainstream Christian dialogue/thought (unlike the heydays of the 50's-70's) to be an indication that they are dying, when it is not.

PT Barnum said...


BTW, I enjoyed the trip around town the other day in the Big Orange Truck! Keep on truckin'!

I probably should have been more clear on my use of the term, "inbreed". You are correct that I was referring to the fact that they basically have all HAC grads on staff and thus the cute little mention of "inbreeds". I am sorry if I threw anyone by using that term.

As far as them loosing recruits, I am just going by a couple of things I have noticed recently. First, I have received emails and contact from some HAC grads recently that encouraged me in regards to the translation issue. Secondly, I have also been encouraged by the surprising amount of people who are members at FBCH but NOT on board with the KJVO issue. My prayer is that these would stand up and voice their historically fundamental and orthodox position on the Scriptures. I do not know that this will happen--I believe they are able to compartmentalize this issue in order to not rock the proverbial boat.

I think that good and honest dialogue about this issue will only destroy their ranks further. I do not wish to give the impression that the battle has been won--KJVOnlyism is a blight on Christianity and needs to be torn down completely and stamped out.

Thanks for your comments and keep the orange side up!


Mike Y said...


It seems safe to jump back in here again. I don't see much of a decline in the IFBx colleges. Perhaps HAC is at a standstill or decline, but Crown, Golden State and West Coast appear to busting at the seams.

And, with respect to the KJV going out, I'd like to state that the answer isn't replacing it with ESV, NASB or any other version. Defending against KJVO idolotry is one thing, but it's still a fine version.

Now, if you all want myyyyyyyyy humble opinion, I'd recommend YLT. There's just something in the name that brings joy to my heart.


PT Barnum said...


No doubt the YLT is a fine translation, but with all due respect I would need to vote for the "Message". Just kidding--the KJV is a fine translation, but there is no doubt that with each passing year it becomes more and more archaic. I use it frequently and memorize from it exclusively. BTW, I hope I did not give the impression that my pastor and I were sipping Starbuck's coffee and plotting the demise of the KJV--he was simply sharing an observation more than anything and not endorsing a particular version in any way. I agree that there is a big difference between KJVO and preferring the KJV as a good and reliable translation. Thanks for the thoughts!



Mike Y said...

Don't worry. I thought no such thing. I was partly making a joke because YLT is "Young" Literal Translation and my last name is Young.

The point I was trying to make is that a study and use of Greek and Hebrew will accomplish more than what can be obtained from any version. It seems some think that in this day and age, such studies are obsolete because we have so many version and tools to reference. But it just wouldn't be the case.

BTW, I use Jay P. Green's Interlinear NT. This is what I carry with me and what I preach out of.

In the body of the pages is the Greek text from the Stephanus Text of 1550. In the right hand margin is the KJV. In the left hand margin is a literal translation. And underneath the Greek text is a word for word translation. They also have a similar tool in Hebrew for the OT.


reglerjoe said...

Question for Mike Young,

Where on earth do you find these cool literal translations? I've never even heard of them! The run-of-the-mill Christian book store usually carries the perfunctory KJV and an inordinate amount of NIV editions.

Mike Y said...

You can find this link on B&C to Studylight:

This is a good guy and he has a desire for folks to know God's word.

Also, if you want to compare a particular translation to the greek or hebrew, you can take a look at:

This site will actually tell you all the parts of speech for the text, just by moving your mouse over it.

Personally, I still do all of my own literal translating when I examine a particular text. It just helps me in my studying.

While I was joking about the YLT, I really do like it, and not just because it shares my last name. It comes very close to capturing grammatical nuances and emphasis in english.

Anyway, there are a lot of free tools available, besides these. My preference is for two tools, which cost a bit. Bibleworks 7 was a recent upgrade for me. I have been using this for several years. The other is OliveTree. OliveTree runs on my PDA and allows me to have access to greek, hebrew, lexicons, parsing info on the fly, and any english version I want. Since I take my PDA everywhere, I can always be ready to give an answer.

I hope this helps.


BeckyJoie said...

Try E-Sword as well! It's a free download.

justmama said...

Edward said, "Dr. Hyles was for the King James well before the 1990's. The fact that you would even write that shows how much you know about the man."

And in the 70's he threatened to expel HAC students for being KJVO. If I'm not mistaken, one young man was expelled. He was STILL preaching against being KJVO around 1982.

"Dr. Hyles always warned about the new translations coming on the scene--in 1984 he began to really expose them and it was not long before he was in the battle of his live."(sic)

In 1984 Dr. Hyles was in the battle of HIS life: Dave had (pardon the pun) screwed up beyond belief. THAT is when "Logic Must Prove the King James Bible" was preached at FBCH, and a new
"crusade" began. He began preaching on the Blood, the Book, and the Body (the local church)...and it did help deflect from the Dave issue(s).


PT Barnum said...


thanks for coming by to visit us under the big top! Be sure to take your daughter by the sword swallower and the dancing bear! You are correct on your timeline regarding Hyles and the KJVO position. I do know also that Cindy Schaap believes that Hyles was "attacked" by Glover and Nischik in the mid 80's because of his "strong stand" for the King James Bible! I found that gem while thumbing through "The Fundamental Man" at one of my family members' home. Hyles used to be orthodox in this particular area and when he needed to circle the wagons he used this emotional topic to serve his cause.

Come back and see us from time to time--be careful though--there are some staff members lurking among the cotton candy vendors!


Chris said...

If KJVO position is double inspiration and other such beliefs, what is someone who believes with John Owen up to John Burgon that the TR is the true text type since historically christans used this and romanists used Aleph & B text types, and believes the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text is the correct and not the Ben Asher? Also what are you called if you believe in derivative inspiration and that dynamic equivalency only produces commentaries? Also believing that Unitarians have no place on translation teams? Long question I know, but I just had a Hefeweizen on an empty stomach. Shhhh... I attend an IFB church. I ask this question because though I thought I was KJVO (for english) from what I've read, I'm not.

PT Barnum said...

The KJVO heresy teaches that the KJV translation of the scriptures is perfect. It also teaches that all other English translations are false and imperfect--the Devil's Bibles. They will usually say that the originals were inspired, but since no one has seen them or can take us to them, God MUST have preserved them perfectly in the KJV!

Historically orthodox Christians have believed and still do believe that the Scriptures were inspired in the perfect originals and that translations are perfect insofar as they reflect what the originals said. We have reliable and faithful translations that the LORD has blessed us with today.

Whether or not Romanists used Aleph and/or B makes no difference to me--some of the greatest fans of the KJV are Hylesites, Ruckmanites, and Mormons. For anyone to be dogmatic about a certain translation is unwise, IMHO.

As far as dynamic equivalence goes, it is and has been a part of every Bible translation--NO translation is completely free of it.

These are all very good questions and I believe that good people can disagree on their conclusions here as long as the discussion is free of dogmatism. KJVPreference is one thing---KJVOnlyism is rank heresy.


Chris said...

I should have clarified that by Dynamic Equivalence I meant the type defined by Eugene Nida. This does not produce translations but commentaries.

As to Aleph and B it is not so much that Romanists use it, but that throughout the history of christianity these textstypes were abandoned by christians. Why should we therefore go back to them? Unless God did not give his people the word of God from the middle of the 4th century until the latter part of the 19th century.

I notice alot of people talk about the ESV. I don't know why they use it when it contradicts the original language in such places as Ps 10:4,5; Eccl 8:10; Is 9:1, 3; 18:2; Col 2:18; Hos 10:1; Prov 26:22. Also it makes Christ a created being in Micah 5:2. But at least it doesn't teach the old gnostic heresy in 1 Cor 5:5 as the NIV does. Seems this is enough to abandon both of these versions.

justmama said...

Matthew said:


thanks for coming by to visit us under the big top! Be sure to take your daughter by the sword swallower and the dancing bear!

Come back and see us from time to time--be careful though--there are some staff members lurking among the cotton candy vendors!

Hey Matt! I've been here lots...just thought to leave a comment on this one. Hmmm...staffers? Would love to know who. Will e-mail soon (provided I remember). BTW, WONDERFUL tribute to your mother. Can't believe I made it through my time at FBCH/HAc without meeting her. She sounds like one incredible woman. She would be proud of you & Josh. I know I am.


PT Barnum said...


If mistakes in translation make a Bible invalid we would have no Bibles that were valid. I would caution you in regards to these "errors". Have you ever done a study on all of the errors in the KJV translation? You don't believe that vital doctrines were altered on purpose by the translators do you? Are you inclined to believe in some sort of a conspiracy to keep the "real" Bible from the general public? This is a slippery slope dear friend.


Joe said...

Thank god for you guys who teach us dumb and uneducated Christians the truth about God's unreliable word. What would god do without you? You guys are filling the void that used to be filled by priests and monks in the dark ages.

What nut would think they could actually trust God to give them a book in their hands that changed the world? The "reliable" bibles haven't changed anything for the better except the bank accounts of the publishers.

Yep, we need the texts from the dark ages and, we need special folks like you guys to teach it to us. That is god's way.

PT Barnum said...


I know you are mad at us for preaching the Truth, but the least you could do is capitalize the name of our LORD when you refer to Him. I know your KJV doesn't capitalize pronouns and such referring to the LORD, but I think it is a good practice. Historic Fundamentalism and historic evangelicalism never believed that any one English translation was perfectly translated. You are free to believe in double inspiration but I believe this is heretical. You are also free to visit here and comment as much as you would like--your view and opinion is welcome even though IMHO it is very misguided.

God bless and take care,

PT Barnum

Joe said...

When I referred to my Lord, I did capitalize "God". It was only when I referred to your lord, that I didn't.