“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer
Last week, in contrast to Jonathan Burris, I mentioned that I have found non- and anti- KJV controversialists who are open, honest, and sincere.[i] I find others who are stuck playing one string on their banjoes and can pluck no other! In some cases, they may be willingly ignorant, determined to debate (regardless), and even deceivers & being deceived.
The Gary Hudson-Doug Kutilek-Rick Norton team of contenders seem to fit that description. They have lit on their “true truth,” found the one string they can pluck, and will not be dislodged from it regardless of the evidence. In “The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of ‘KJV–Onlyism,’” Doug Kutilek writes:
In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants.
They have determined to dismiss “King James Only” theology and history out of hand by foisting on it a genealogy error. Doug Kutilek and others have made a cottage industry out of it.
Find someone who believed only the King James Bible was the word of God before Benjamin Wilkinson? “Dismissed! They can’t be KJVO because that does not fit our pre-determined genealogical scheme.” If my Baptist ancestors never heard of Benjamin Wilkinson, J. J. Ray, Fuller, or Ruckman, but believed their King James Bibles represented the inspired word of God? “Dismissed! This can’t be so, because we have already set the parameters and drawn the lines.” There is no reasoning with these guys. They will not be budged by any kind of evidence. How do we know? We’ve tried, and they still won’t move.[ii]
The H-K-N team excels in hypocrisy. When olden King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team then erases them from the line of “KJV Only” supporters. However, when contemporary King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team charges that these are lying and are still to be considered “KJV Only.”
These are:
- Deceivers, Deceiving, Being Deceived?
- Woefully Willfully Ignorant?
- Dogmatically Dead-Set to Debate?
- Quibblers Qualified in Quibbling?
“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer
[ii] 1. One of Rick Norton’s perennial lines is that Archbishop Richard Bancroft (or another prelate or somebody) altered “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37 to make it say “robbers of churches.” He can find one old 1671 quote to that effect; inflate the claim with dozens of others with no evidence other than the first claim; ignore the fact that that translation previously appeared in the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible; ignore the fact that the King James translators used “churchrobber” in 2 Maccabees 4:42, clearly in reference to the temple; and then just keep repeating the claim ad infinitum. 2. Plenty of Pre-Wilkinsonian historical evidence has been provided of the existence supporters of the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the word of God. It seems to be dismissed out of hand because they simply cannot be KJVO. For a few samples, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment