Jack the Ripper and the King James Bible

What does Jack the Ripper have to do with the King James Bible? Well, apparently he represents judgment on those of us who abandoned that old faithful translation of generations past. In 1881 the Revised Version came out and met with widespread approval. So seven years later, in 1888, 5 women faced a gruesome death at the heads of a maniac dubbed Jack the Ripper. Who’d have known this was retribution for abandoning the King James Bible?

Here’s the comment we received right here yesterday which alleges this very thing, that Jack the Ripper was judgment on Britain for abandoning the King James Bible.

I would think 1881 is a good year to note as a line of demarcation of overlap and underlap of the Church of the Laodiceans and the Church in Philadelphia because after all, that is when the Laodiceans started to accept the old/new Bible which after 7 years were rewarded for their deeds by being visited by Jack the Ripper (by their fruits ye shall know them). The Philadelphian Church Age will continue as long as the Rapture because there are going to be those who stand for the faith once delivered to the saints until that time. Revelation 3 says (well at least it does in my Bible) …

Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Now of course, the 2001 ESV is to blame for America’s tragic terror incident of 911. But we could turn the tables on the KJB. In 1607 the translation work for the KJB was being done in earnest. That’s also the year that the England’s Bristol Channel flooded, killing over 2,000 people. (That’s a lot more than 5.) Then around the time the King James Bible was finally gaining or surpassing the place of the Geneva Bible as the most used English Bible, there was the Great Plague of London which killed over 100,000 people (1665-1666). Surely that was judgment on England for abandoning the old Geneva Bible.

This comment illustrates that sometimes, people will see connections where they want to see them. It’s hard reasoning with this mentality. For those on either side of the KJB debate, let us work toward a careful and calm interaction, not a conspiracy theory-driven mentality that frankly doesn’t edify anyone.

**Picture adapted from an 1880 Punch cartoon, “The Nemesis of Neglect”, accessed at Wikipedia, 12/27/2010.


39 thoughts on “Jack the Ripper and the King James Bible

  1. Andrew Suttles May 18, 2010 / 12:04 pm

    It sounds about as reasonable as a lot of KJVO logic. Then again, maybe Jack the Ripper was unleashed as a punishment for Dispensationalism.

  2. fundyreformed May 18, 2010 / 12:29 pm

    Did he do his work in the Plymouth area?? Seriously though, any connections like that are dubious at best.

    • fundyreformed May 18, 2010 / 2:20 pm

      Wasn’t sure! I figured it was a jest, though…

  3. Philip D May 18, 2010 / 1:00 pm

    Kind of reminds me of how William Grady links the proliferation of modern versions to such “horrors” as Christian Theme parks and interracial marriage.

    • fundyreformed May 18, 2010 / 2:21 pm

      Yea. It seems I had heard the Jack the ripper tie in before, somewhere, too. I wouldn’t put it past someone like Grady to initiate something like this.

  4. Shaun Tabatt May 18, 2010 / 9:35 pm

    Wow! That must rank up there as one of the top ten most off the wall comments of all time. 😉 I’m curious if this is something that Joe Ohio came up with on his own or if he read it someplace else first.

    • fundyreformed May 18, 2010 / 9:37 pm

      Yea, I’m pretty sure I heard that in some other forum at one time, too. But it is way out there….

    • fundyreformed May 19, 2010 / 11:08 am

      Wow, Erik. Sounds plausible. But of course the freemasonry conspiracy theories abound. Interesting stuff.

  5. Joe May 19, 2010 / 12:18 pm

    And you guys consider this serious discussion!

    • fundyreformed May 19, 2010 / 12:24 pm

      No we don’t Joe. But the commenter was serious. And that’s what is worthy of discussion. And it’s okay to laugh a little too. We’ll return to serious posting soon, no worries.

    • Joe May 19, 2010 / 2:09 pm

      Intentional humiliation of a brother in Christ is not fun.

    • Erik May 19, 2010 / 2:31 pm

      Seriously, Joe?

      There is a demarkation between serious contribution to the discussion and presenting absurd one-man theories. There’s no humiliation involved in saying that such a statement has no foundation in fact.

  6. Joe May 19, 2010 / 3:22 pm

    So then, Erik, are you defending the humiliation of this brother? Is this what pastors do these days?

    • Erik May 19, 2010 / 3:54 pm

      Dear Joe:

      hu·mil·i·ate   [hyoo-mil-ee-eyt or, often, yoo-] –verb (used with object),-at·ed, -at·ing.
      to cause (a person) a painful loss of pride, self-respect, or dignity; mortify.

      I believe I wrote, “There’s no humiliation…” Hence, I am not defending it since I don’t believe there is humiliation going on here. We find this absurd position to be humorous. We would find it humorous it if were proposed in a seminary class, and I guarantee that under peer review, anyone who made such an unfounded statement would be TRULY humiliated.

      Beside that, sometimes humiliation teaches us a little humility. And a little humility before the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE SCRIPTURES is something that serves anyone well.

      So, in short, I would ask you to kindly descend from your position of condescension.

    • Joe May 19, 2010 / 8:03 pm


      I am sorry, for it is written in God’s word of Paul.

      “And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

    • Erik May 19, 2010 / 8:53 pm

      Joe, I’m not sure if you’re attempting to be sarcastic or not. I assume that you’re putting us in Ananias’ place and yourself in Paul’s. I might be wrong, but just in case, let’s get the context of the passage you shared:

      And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”

      And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

      Then said Paul unto him, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”

      And they that stood by said, “Revilest thou God’s high priest?”

      Then said Paul, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

      Paul intentionally insulted Ananias. Paul knew perfectly well who he was talking to. Ananias had been the high priest when Paul had been one of the servants of the Sanhedrin. His statement was intended to point out that anyone who would order his servants to strike a good man who lived according to TORAH was not worthy of the priesthood.

      In the same vein, anyone who would insult the Scriptures by implying that they teach something that they clearly do not – whether it is Jack the Ripper as punishment for the 1881 revision or that 9/11 was God’s punishment for American homosexuality (both equally extra-biblical) needs to be called on the carpet for it.

    • Andrew Suttles May 20, 2010 / 7:37 am

      Joe –

      Are you saying we should discuss whether a Bible translation was the impetous for Jack the Ripper in a serious way?

      Are you saying we should not confront error because the person making the error might be offended?

  7. Damien T Garofalo May 19, 2010 / 9:02 pm

    one of the beauties of the Internet is the ability to expose how ridiculous these sorts of arguments are. Brining to light these absurdities might actually cause people to think before they type.

  8. Joe May 19, 2010 / 10:13 pm

    “Us?” I love it when men appeal to the crowd. It really is ridiculous Damien. And so is this article and anyone that can take these Duffer comments seriously.

    • Andrew Suttles May 20, 2010 / 7:39 am

      Joe –

      Just laugh it off brother. It is a corny anonymous comment that we can all laugh at. When our brothers make good sound arguments for the KJV, TR, or MT, they are not laughed off, but dealt with in a mature responsible way. I would hope/assume that were the shoe on the other foot, we would all have just as much fun making jest of the argument.

  9. Damien T Garofalo May 19, 2010 / 10:39 pm

    ok, Joe. Suppose the comments from Joe Ohio about the Jack the Ripper connection to the modern versions was sincere. Do you think that’s a ridiculous assertion? Have you not heard similar things in the writings of Riplinger, Marrs, Grady, Ruckman, etc? Do their writings influence many people? Then it is necessary to expose this garbage.

    Furthermore, we have been careful many times to not lump together everyone who holds to the KJVO position. I hope you’ve noticed that; others haven’t. No matter how many disclaimers we’ve provided, people get angry about it without taking them into consideration. I certainly have disagreed with non-KJVO at times. If you’re KJVO and you think that Joe Ohio (and others) arguments are ridiculous, why not stand with us against them?

  10. Joe May 19, 2010 / 10:53 pm

    Any time you speak of Ruckman, you are not indicating that you are serious about having a good discussion. You are simply proving that you are interested only in attempting to embarrass pro TR / KJB users with the silly things some of them write. Two ways to have dealt with the ridiculous message would be 1) a gentle rebuke to an obvious zealous but lacking knowledge Christian or 2) ignore it, chuckle to yourself. When this was made into an entire article you proved that you were only interested in attempting to ridicule KJB people. You have destroyed any good faith you may have been mustering. I personally now have only disdain for anything offered here.

    • Erik May 19, 2010 / 11:18 pm

      Joe, your observations about our intentions are incorrect; and any brief glance at this site’s content will tell you that the guys who write here are not just interesting in embarrassing pro TR/KJB users, especially given the recent rash of posts we have made on what the KJV translators got right.

      I’m sorry that you personally now have only disdain, but this place is a forum for discussion and not disdain. If you have no interest in the content here, then I recommend you not visit the site anymore.

    • Andrew Suttles May 20, 2010 / 7:43 am

      Joe –

      I hope you don’t leave off offering your opinions here. Well reasoned responses to the challenges provided here are what make this blog so interesting. I think most of us are fair minded enough to want to hear both sides of the issue. Bob has even provided resources links to some of the better KJVO stuff out there. Bob has even attempted to get Dr. Robinson (not your position, I understand) to do an interview for the site – that would be excellent and I hope we can get more serious discussion regarding the MT.

  11. Joe May 20, 2010 / 6:32 am

    “Our intentions” Again Erik, you are letting me know you are in the “in-crowd!” I was responding to Damien. Thanks for the recommendation to leave.

    • Andrew Suttles May 20, 2010 / 7:45 am

      >> ‘If you have no interest in the content here, then I recommend you not visit the site anymore.’

      > ‘Thanks for the recommendation to leave.’

      Again, I recommend you laugh off this one off and continue to contribute. I appreciate your arguments. Don’t leave.

    • Erik May 20, 2010 / 8:19 am


      Damien, Will, Bob, Jason and I are the authors of this site. We are widely diverse in our opinions but are a team of authors. That is the we you seem to not be able to comprehend.

    • JasonS May 20, 2010 / 9:07 am

      It is not recommended that you leave. It is recommended that you leave if you cannot comment as a mature and reasonable person.
      We work hard to make this a site for mature debate. A little fun doesn’t hurt at times.
      I’m sure that you’ve seen some KJVO folks who blast all who do not believe as they do. Have you called their hand on it?
      You are welcomed here, Joe. Just comment in a calm, mature fashion and we can all work together. If you ignore, or twist what we have to say you are disinvited.
      By the way, are you from Ohio?

  12. Joe May 20, 2010 / 10:12 am


    Yes, I have called out ridiculousness I found from some pro-KJB readers. But you keep calling me immature and unreasonable. What is immature is Erik always using “us” and “we” to give more force to his statements. This places me in a minority position which is a warfare tactic. This obviously means that he is looking at this as a combative situation.

    I strongly voiced my disdain for the use of the ridiculous statement as something to discuss in a serious way (some of you HAVE taken this as a serious issue) and was told that it was for fun, which I see as at the expense and embarrassment of the poor soul who has made it obvious that he has more zeal than knowledge. Because other representatives of the whole KJB user groups such at Peter Ruckman are constantly being brought up, I have no other rational conclusion to draw than that some of you are in this only to embarrass KJB users. In other words, if I did not see belittling on this website, I would agree you were serious. But you have banned folks and chastised folks for less belittling of you than you do to others. There ought to be none of this. This is what I tried to express, thinking that at least one of you would have recognized the error. Instead, one pastor among you continues to justify this behavior, then accuses me of taking a position of condensation. Hear me please: I know nothing save for what Christ teaches me in his word. Therefore with whatever judgment I use I know I will be judged, and as a Christian, I welcome that judgment. I really do not think Christ would approve of this article, and I am surprised and amazed that not even one of you indicated that you felt an iota of concern.

    Show me, don’t tell me, that you are serious minded. Show me, don’t tell me that you are interested in the processes by which folks as I come to comprehend that the KJB is the true word of God and that the modern versions are not. I have stated that I do this by faith as defined in the bible, but you tell me that my faith should be based upon experience and sight. You do realize that biblical faith cannot be blind, since it is what IS our evidence of things not seen. But after faith, we can rejoice in finding witnesses to what we already knew. So I would call your attention to four Scriptures: John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:6, and John 10:14-15. The modern versions repeat the error of Valentinus, Arius, and other errors such as making the knowledge of God of Jesus equal to our knowledge of Jesus. I hope you understand that I cannot in good conscience toward my Saviour, ever use books that contain these intentional errors. I also cannot understand why you also would continue to do so after having these errors pointed out. (If you need elaboration, just ask.)

    • Erik May 20, 2010 / 11:41 am

      The use of a plural pronoun to refer to a GROUP OF PEOPLE is combative? I was speaking of the actions of the ENTIRE GROUP OF AUTHORS who have ALL commented on this. I was speaking of the posting by Bob, who is one of the authors here. I was speaking for myself.

      It would be rather foolish to speak for these groups by using a first person singular pronoun, now wouldn’t it?

      If you feel so wronged, please go elsewhere. Stop complaining.

    • fundyreformed May 20, 2010 / 12:09 pm


      We have to agree to disagree here. Highlighting that comment as I did is showing that the KJV Only movement has some concerns. It also is humourous and I did think it was kind of funny.

      My post did more than laugh however, I dismantled the reasoning of the argument. I showed how it can be applied to the KJB just as readily as to other versions.

      So I was making a point too.

      You don’t like that and think it is all about humiliation, I disagree. Erik disagrees, Jason and Damien disagree. In other words, we disagree.

      You are right, there are more of us than there is you. I can’t help that, I’m sorry.

      However, maybe you’d be up for this. We could let you do a guest post for us. Give a post for us to use here which explains your reasons for strictly using the KJB. We would post it verbatim without changing anything, and we could discuss it in the comments. It would be good to hear directly from KJB Bible users like that.

      In Christ,


  13. Joe May 20, 2010 / 1:10 pm


    This is unexpected, I must admit. However, to create an article may take me some time. You see, I am an engineer, one of many who are well known for spelling atrocities. This is where the time would come in. I assume you have a direct email account to which I might respond? I will look for it.

    Thank you.

    • fundyreformed May 20, 2010 / 3:35 pm

      I emailed you back, Joe.

      I’m going to close the comments here as they have been getting heated and we’ve all said our peace already. Hope you understand.

Comments are closed.