Link to Dr. Wilkinson's book!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hi, All!

    You regular readers here know that for years I have insisted that the current KJVO idea is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book. That cult official was Dr. Benjamin George Wilkinson(1872-1968), a noted 7TH DAY ADVENTIST preacher/teacher/college dean/college president; his book in question is his 1930 work, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

    Here's a link to the text of that book:

    http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm

    I hope everyone concerned about the English versions issue reads it, then compares contemporary KJVO worx with it, to see why I insist KJVO is derived from a cult official's book. Having read that book, as well as gobs of boox/pamphlets by Ray, Ruckman, Fuller, Riplinger, Grady, Gipp, Melton, Hyles, Chick, etc. & seen material from Wilkinson's book in EVERY ONE of them, I can safely repeat my statement in the opening paragraph of this post.

    (This link is perfectly legal; the copyright on Dr. W's book is long-expired.)

    PLEASE READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELVES !
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roby,

    Somewhere I have a copy of a book by a guy named David Cimino that I acquired back in the 70's and IIRC he pretty much quotes Wilkinson. I'll have to dig through boxes and find it and compare.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yeah, MOST KJVO literature either quotes W directly, or re-states his material, slightly re-worded to avoid plagiarism & having to mention W by name.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I see no KJVO response to this thread. I hope this lack is caused by their actually taking the time to READ THAT BOOK, & compare the subsequent KJVO literature of Ray, Fuller, Ruckman, etc. to it, to affirm the man-made source of the KJVO doctrine.

    There's certainly no SCRIPTURAL basis for it, not even in the KJV itself.
     
  5. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why try to send a train down a dirt road to make your point?

    I've stuck with the KJV primarilly due to its prose and excellent way of saying things.

    I haven't read much on any "KJVO" author and really don't care to.

    I have other versions but I always revert back to the KJV.

    Why not stop all your ranting and raving giving so much air-time to cultists and go win somebody to Jesus instead of whining about versions and your being like some one with an obsessive personally disorder just might get a rest.:sleeping_2:

    Actually, I see you doing your "side" as doing the body of Christ just as much if not more harm than you claim the "KJVO" does. At least you're doing your side more harm.
     
  6. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    The pot is calling the kettle black again.
     
  7. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Roby's defense, the KJVO doctrine is a divisive doctrine that only hinders the work of Christ.

    It does need to be refuted but it can also take up too much time in refutation.
     
  8. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, yeah dale, I can see just where having the word of God in a form of a language which is expressly accurate does alot of harm to the body of Christ and is divisive:sleep:

    The only divisiveness is when people depart from the word of God and endorse a multiplicity of versions as being just as accurate: sort of reminds me of a Toyota commercial I heard once.

    "All the other guys compare their models to our Toyotas. Well, why not just buy a Toyota and be satisified.":sleep:
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Response removed by me.

    This post does not merit a reply!

    Ed
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    MY "side" is that of the TRUTH.

    Now, Mr. Garvey, do you have any SCRIPTURE to support KJVO? If not, that means it's a MAN-MADE doctrine of worship & cannot possibly be true.

    I have posted the link to its MAN-MADE source. Do you have any SCRIPTURAL source? Betcha DON'T!
     
  11. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are very funny, Brother, and your response lacks fortitude.

    I can accept other people having other versions, why is it the ones who do respond to those of us who stay with the KJV like this?

    Talking about taking underhanded shots and being DIVISIVE!:tongue3:
     
  12. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of Scripture, my Brother, and I don't need anybody's book to convince me of anything. I've got The Book!:thumbsup:

    Why is it you come across so irrational?
     
  13. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought Ed Sutton's response was one of the most gentlemanly ones I have seen. In contrast, your response to Dale was not. For someone who preaches about love and forgiveness you sure don't exemplify it.

    I can accept people using the KJV, why is it the ones who do respond to those of us who use many versions like this? (Whatever that means).
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Oh really? In your post numbered 8, you said:"...when people depart from the Word of God and endorse a multiplicity of versions as being accurate."

    You do not in-fact accept other people having other versions. You think the KJV (of whatever flavor -- thanks EdSutton) is the only Word of God. Other versions in your view are not -- they're just pretenders.
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, there was no humor intended, in any manner, in my post, only sadness. :tear:

    If one has bothered to read my own posts, one will find that I have said multiple times that, among versions that are fairly easy to come by, I prefer one particular edition of the NKJV and one particular edition of the KJV. The key word here, is prefer. These two are based on the same identical texts, for both the OT and NT, with one exception. That is that the KJ-1611 and the several 'genuine' editions of the KJV that followed for the next 2 1/2 centuries, included the Apocrypha, which although I do not believe this to be inspired Scripture, the interest of historic accuracy, demands be included, where is the real difference??

    In addition, the effective insistence that ONLY the KJV is the written word of God (with which assertion I also agree, if one leave off the "only" bit) and to the exclusion of others (by implication, if not by direct statement, and with which 'implied assertion' I disagree strongly) and that somehow the KJV translators were supernaturally guided above all others, is something I cannot and do not accept.

    This very assertion also callously dismisses every version that preceded the KJV, as well, from the labors of Tyndale (who more than any other individual is responsible for the words of the KJV almost a century later), through Coverdale, Rogers, Whittingham, et al., in the attempt to cast aspersions on all the translators and versions which have since appeared, which I reject.

    One can rightfully question the text(s) involved in any version, without hesitation.

    One can question the actual translation of any portion, as well, as to the accuracy of said passage.

    One does not have to slander the other translators or their motives, in order to do either.

    Ed
     
    #15 EdSutton, Jul 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2009
  16. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    except that the Book don't teach none of whatever u're selling concerning KJBOism.

    o i take that back ... KJBOism has only proven that the snake hissin Yea hath God said is still at large. why is it non-KJBOists are affirming inspiration n inerrancy of the Words of God while KJBOists hiss loudly in the background?

    answer's in the mirror.
     
  17. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Picking up offenses for others? Maybe you're called of God to judge?:love2:

    I think you're linking me up with those you have so often replied to with the vile tongue, again.

    face it, you're just another "martyr"


    When one operates from his obsessive personality disorder he usually rants and raves about it until it becomes sickening. Not sickening to himself because he feeds upon it, but certainly to others and thus the "merited" responses.:tonofbricks:
     
  18. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, lots of "I"'s and "my" 's.

    I have not slandered any translation.

    Am I to now understand the NWT you have never slandered?

    Actually I thin k it slanders the very word of God. Other versions offer misrepresentations in places while others even leave off whole passages.

    The KJV is complete while others have less, thus why settle for less?

    I have too much to do other than figure out which version I like best and try to decide if what one says is what the other says and where the info came from to decide if it's from the right source.

    I'll stick with the KJV. I look at other versions often and always revert right back to the KJV.

    I don't question the word of God in any translation, but I do take the time to define its words so I may allow the Spirit to enhance the reading for my benefit.
     
  19. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are we unable to use cognitive abilities due to the obsessive rantings and ravings again?
     
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does appear interesting that you used more of the " "I"'s and "my" 's" in your own post than were used in the post to which you were 'responding'.
    You might wish to check the definition of "slander".

    Thus -

    Does misrepresenting the textual basis of the NKJV count, here?

    That would appear to fit the definition.
    NWT? "Slandered"? No.

    Described this as a version that was 'manufactured' to 'fit' the doctrines of 'the Watchtower' a.k.a. the Jehovah Witnesses? Yes, openly and often.
    Well, it does appear that you do manage to find time to "look at other versions often" and post on the Baptist board, even though you are obviously a busy person, by your own claims. :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
    #20 EdSutton, Jul 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...