GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION ARGUMENTS AND THE KJV
by Pastor Emanuel Rodriguez
I believe that the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. As it stands in its final edition, I believe it is PERFECT. I always have believed this and always will. There are many reasons why I hold to this position but in this article I want to address a particular argument tactic that is used by those of the opposing viewpoint. Then I will demonstrate the fallacy of their argument.
Our opponents try to invalidate our position for the superiority of the KJV by trying to connect us to someone that is controversial or questionable. By doing so, they can then claim that our position is man-made instead of God-given. They will do the best they can to make the controversial or questionable figure look as bad as possible. Then they will associate our position with this “villain” in an effort to intimidate us from our position. This strategy will not work for some of us because we are not as shallow-minded as they are. This tactic is known as guilt-by-association.
THE CONTROVERSIAL PETER RUCKMAN
The late Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (1921-2016), was the Pastor of the Bible Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL. As the Founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute he was responsible for training many Pastors and Missionaries. He was considered one of the most controversial Bible teachers amongst Fundamental Baptists. He was a staunch defender of the KJV. In fact, I would go so far as saying that he was perhaps the most outspoken of all KJV defenders in modern times. He was definitely the most aggressive and he possessed a bombastic teaching style.
Dr. Ruckman was also a prolific writer and it was through his many writings that he made many enemies because he would not hesitate to criticize and mention the names of anyone who held to the opposing viewpoint concerning Bible versions. What disturbed so many was that he had the audacity to call out anyone no matter how beloved they may had been amongst Fundamentalists. This gave him a volatile reputation amongst Fundamentalists.
Around 1980, the late Dr. Stewart Custer, a professor at Bob Jones University, wrote a 36-page booklet entitled The Truth About The King James Version Controversy. In it he insisted that there were two basic positions on Bible versions and manuscripts: the Conservative Position and the Ruckman Position. He described the so-called “Conservative” position as being that which upholds the Alexandrian Critical Texts. He then described the so-called “Ruckman” position as one that upheld the KJV as the only Bible to use in English.
In more than half the booklet, Custer did the best he could to present Dr. Ruckman as a villain by listing many things concerning Ruckman’s life and teachings that he disagreed with. This was a smear tactic. The insinuation of his argument was that anyone who defended the KJV and anyone who criticized the Alexandrian Critical Texts were “Ruckmanites”. In other words, they were followers of a man, a controversial one, instead of the Lord. Thus, guilt by association.
Most, if not all, proponents of the Critical Texts adopted this tactic in their arguments against the KJV-only position. Interestingly, even some who defend the KJV and Received Texts, fell for this trick and began distancing themselves from anything Ruckman-related. Thus, the labels “Ruckmanite” and “Ruckmanism” were born. THE QUESTIONABLE BENJAMIN WILKINSON
Another controversial defender of the KJV was Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson. Wilkinson was the author of an excellent treatise in 1930 entitled Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. This writing made a distinction between two streams of Bible manuscripts throughout history: the Received Texts and the Critical Texts.
This writing became popular amongst defenders of the KJV and the Received Texts when it was re-published in David Otis Fuller’s classic Which Bible in the 1970s (a personal favorite of mine). In this writing Dr. Wilkinson concluded that the stream of manuscript evidence that supported the KJV was the pure stream, and the stream that led to the modern versions was corrupt.
However, Dr. Wilkinson was a Seventh Day Adventist. Most Fundamentalists, like myself, would consider the Adventists to be heretics concerning what they teach on salvation and other things. Once our opponents discovered that Wilkinson was a Seventh Day Adventist, they jumped on the opportunity to use another guilt-by-association argument against us.
ARE WE MEN-FOLLOWERS?
I have many friends who like myself are outspoken defenders of the KJV. Some of them think very highly of Dr. Ruckman. Some of them would not have anything to do with Dr. Ruckman. Some are somewhere in between. As for me, I DO NOT CARE what people think.
I heard Dr. Ruckman preach in person one time in my life, but I never got to meet the man. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. The issue is not Ruckman. The issue is the Bible. I refuse to fall for these petty guilt-by-association arguments that don’t amount to a hill of beans. The older I get in the Lord, the less I care about what others think about me or who I may or not may not be associated with. It’s time for some Christians to grow up.
I have some KJV-only friends who have worked hard to disassociate themselves with Dr. Ruckman. In their attempts to defend the KJV they are hoping that their opponents will extend to them the courtesy of appreciating their efforts to disassociate with Ruckman. I think they are wasting their time. The Bible version debate has been around long enough for me to realize that those of the opposing viewpoint will never extend to us the courtesy of acknowledging that we are not man-followers but rather lovers of God’s pure words just as the psalmist who said “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” Psalm 119:140.
Our opponents insist that we are Bible worshippers and men followers. They will never change their inferior arguments simply because these are the BEST arguments that they have. Their viewpoint is so weak and shallow that they NEED these guilt-by-association arguments. Since the evidence does not favor their position, they must hold on to these pathetic tactics.
The guilt-by-association argument is an effort to shame the opponent. It is an effort to intimidate the opponent. It is a fear tactic; an effort to discourage others from considering our viewpoint. Some Bible-believers need to stop falling for this trick. WHO CARES WHAT THE OPPONENTS THINK ABOUT WHO WE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH?! This is just their poor attempt to distract from the real issue at hand.
I like what my friend Dr. Phil Stringer’s definition is of a “Ruckmanite”. He said, “A Ruckmanite is what the opponents call you when they are losing the argument.” I agree.
When I was on deputation to be a missionary, a Pastor asked me one time, “What flavor are you?” I answered, “Well I’m King James only. I’m Independent Baptist. I’m pre-millineal…” He cut me off and said, “No, no. What I mean is are you of the Ruckman flavor, the Jack Hyles flavor, the Bob Jones flavor, the Lee Robertson/Tennessee Temple flavor, the Sammy Allen/camp meeting flavor…” And he went on mentioning a bunch of names and alma-maters. I then responded, “I guess I’m a little bit of all of them yet none of them at the same time.” I really didn’t know what to tell him that would make him happy because the truth is that I don’t really stick with one crowd or another. I don’t run with just one particular circle. I have all kinds of friends. I also have all kinds of enemies. However, as we got to conversing, the Pastor recognized that one of my friends was associated with Dr. Ruckman. So then he concluded, “Oh so you’re a Ruckmanite.” Then he went on a rant about everything he disagreed with Ruckman on. Needless to say, I didn’t get any support from that Pastor just because I was a friend with someone who was associated with Dr. Ruckman.
Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of these childish games. This is sheer stupidity and shallow mindedness. I am friends with all kinds of brethren from all kinds of circles. A couple things that most of my friends and I have in common is that we love Jesus and we love the King James Bible. Why can’t that be good enough?
I am extremely anti-Calvinist. I am against all 5 points of T.U.L.I.P. theology and I believe that Limited Atonement is one of the worst heresies that was ever birthed out of hell. Yet I have read some books by Calvinistic authors such as Spurgeon, Bridges, Pink, Talmadge, Tozer, and others and I liked some of what they said. Does that make me a Calvinist? I have received some inspiration from reading the biographies of men like John Wesley and Sam Jones. I also love singing the hymns authored by Charles Wesley. Unfortunately, these guys were Arminians who believed you can lose your salvation. I would never have these men in my pulpit because I believe in Eternal Security. (In fact, I wrote a book defending Eternal Security.) Yet according to the flawed logic of guilt-by-association I must be an Arminian even though I believe in Eternal Security.
I guess if ownership and referencing of material defines a person I can be labeled all sorts of things. It’s a good thing that I don’t care what the opponents think because I would go crazy trying to disassociate myself with every single label that could be thrown at me. I refuse to fall for this nonsense.
I am against Seventh Day Adventist theology. However, I agree 100% with Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson’s assessment of the two streams of Bible texts. The information he gave concerning Bible manuscripts was a matter of HISTORY not THEOLOGY. We can learn good history from someone who is off on his theology. Historians believe all kinds of things. Would you accept the weather report from only someone that has the same theology as you? Do you only accept historical information from people that you agree with on everything? Of course you don’t. No one does. Facts are facts no matter who gives them. Facts are facts no matter how wrong the individual may be on other things. It would be ridiculous to assume that agreement with someone’s historical information would mean that we agree theologically. Yet that is the way the puny minds of some of our opponents work.
By the way, if our opponents really want to play the guilt-by-association game, let’s get real about Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson. The truth is that Wilkinson’s views on the Bible text issue were not the norm amongst his Adventist peers. Wilkinson obviously failed in convincing his colleagues of his position. In his book entitled Ready Answers, Dr. Phil Stringer talks about the time when he contacted the Seventh Day Adventist headquarters to ask them about Benjamin Wilkinson. They informed Dr. Stringer that they had no intentions of ever reprinting Wilkinson’s book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.
The fact is that the general position of the Seventh Day Adventists today is the same as the Fundamentalists that uphold the Alexandrian Critical Texts. What about other heretics and cultists that support the Westcott and Hort theories and the Critical Texts? (We’ll discuss Westcott and Hort later.) Do our opponents really want to play the guilt-by-association game?
ROMAN CATHOLIC PROPAGANDA
Guilt-by-association is a flawed logic that contributes to misinformation. For example, the early Christians of the Piedmont valleys of Northern Italy were labeled by the Catholic church as the Waldenses. They were named after an early Christian that the Catholic church opposed and hated named Peter Waldo. Waldo started his work about 1130 AD. Many historians followed suit in also calling this early Christian group the “Waldensians”. But the Waldensians didn’t call themselves Waldensians, at least not in the beginning. The truth is that this label is inaccurate. For the Waldenses were not started by Peter Waldo in the 1100s.
The “Waldenses” have been around ever since the 2nd century. Prior to the 1100s they were known as the Vaudois. A famous Waldensian literature known as “La Nobla Leycon” (The Noble Lesson) dates the Vaudois back to the days of Constantine in the 4th century. The Vaudois, or early Waldenses, were also known as the Italic Church. Theodore Beza, an author of several editions of the Textus Receptus, dates the Italic Church in his writings as early as 120 AD, which is just 20-30 years after the death of the Apostle John himself!
So as you can see, labels are not always what they appear to be. In fact, labels are many times meant to deliberately distort the truth about an individual or a group of people. Obviously, the Catholic church wished to associate these Christians to Peter Waldo of the 1100s so as to hide the Vaudois’ ancient history which would point to them as the fruit of Apostolic Christianity. The Catholic church was writing their own version of history and they desired to create the narrative that they are the true church that dates back to the Apostolic age. Therefore, they had to create false labels in order to advance their propaganda.
Such labeling is also an effort to polarize a group of people of which the opponents wish to discourage others from joining. Such guilt-by-association tactics have been employed by the Catholic church all throughout history, especially during the Protestant Reformation era and the Spanish Inquisition.
Today’s effort to trace the “KJV-only movement”, as they label it, to either Ruckman or Wilkinson is not a new strategy. The Roman Catholics have been using this tactic for centuries. How ironic that while our opponents try so hard to label us as Ruckmanites and men-followers they are employing Roman Catholic tactics. While they call us Ruckmanites, Bible worshippers, and men-followers, perhaps we should drop to their level and call them Bible-denying Catholics since they employ the same tactics.
THE KJV-ONLY POSITION IS THE TRUE HISTORIC POSITION
The fact is that our position in defense of the KJV was being held by Bible-believers long before Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson wrote his book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930. Also, we are about to see that there were those who believed the KJV was without error before Dr. Peter S. Ruckman was even born.
I have a copy of a newspaper article from The Vancouver Sun in July 7, 1951 that contains statements from a Pastor named Mark Buch. Pastor Buch was a fierce opponent of the Revised Standard Version when it first came out. He publicly debated against proponents of the modern versions. The article stated this concerning Buch‘s view of the KJV:
“Another minister, Rev. Mark Buch, of the People’s Fellowship Tabernacle, asked the question ‘Have we today a faultless copy of the Word of God?’ and answered his own question in the affirmative.”
The article goes on to quote Mark Buch verbatim:
“I believe the whole Bible, not a Bible full of holes. I believe we have the inerrant Word of God; I’m here to inspire faith, not doubt.”
Notice the word he used was “inerrant”. Here is a preacher teaching that the KJV was without error a decade before Dr. Ruckman wrote his first book on the subject. And in case there’s any doubt as to which version he was referring to, the article further states:
“Claiming that the revised versions of the Bible came from questionable sources, Mr. Buch averred that the King James version was directly translated from a pure copy of the original text without mistake, fault or error.”
Dr. Thomas Cassidy wrote an article in which he revealed that an early Fundamentalist named Dr. W. B. Riley complained about a crowd in his day that were standing for the “inerrancy of the King James Bible”. Sound familiar? Dr. Cassidy wrote:
”W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you. Dr. Riley then erroneously states the AV inerrancy position by saying on page 13, "To claim, therefore, inerrancy for the King James Version...is to claim inerrancy for men who never professed it for themselves..." No one, that I am aware of, is claiming inerrancy for men, but only for the words of God. This position is, I believe, a straw man, attempting to ascribe to us something we do not believe, and then condemn us for believing what they claim we believe….
So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.
Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born! The challenge of one scoffer to "Name one person who believed in the inspiration or inerrancy of the King James Version prior to 1950 and I'll send you $1000", has just been answered (please send the money to me at the address in the front of this book!). [Textual Criticism: Fact of Fiction by Thomas Cassidy (First Baptist Church Publications, 8758 Troy Street, Spring Valley, CA 91977)]
Notice that Dr. Riley’s complaint against those claiming inerrancy for the AV was published in his book in 1917! His information proves that there was a crowd of “the old conception” that espoused this “KJV Only” position in the late 1800s.
Here is a quote from an individual named Basil Manly Jr in 1888.
“Why so strenuous of exact inspiration of the words, when you admit there may be errors of transcription? What do you gain? We answer, we gain all the difference there is between an inspired and an uninspired original; all the difference between a document truly divine and authoritative to begin with — though the copies or translations may have in minute particulars varied from it — and a document faulty and unreliable at the outset, and never really divine... There is even now, with some ignorant persons, an assumption of the infallibility and equality with the original of some particular translation, as the Vulgate, or King James, or Luther’s.” [The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration (1888) pg. 84 by Basil Manly Jr.]
So again we see evidence that in the late 1800s there were those who believed that the KJV was without error and even equal to the Original Autographs.
I BELIEVE THE SAME THING! There has never existed a collection of the original writings of all 66 books of the Bible. However, if such a collection did exist today, I would consider my King James Bible to be just as powerful, infallible, inerrant, alive, pure, and authoritative. The ONLY difference would be that the KJV is in English and the original writings would be in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. That’s it! The only difference would be that of language.
Why do I believe this? Because of Ruckman or Wilkinson? No. I believe this because of the many verses in the Scriptures, such as Psalm 12:6-7, where God promised us the preservation of His perfect and pure words in every generation. Every generation includes TODAY. If we don’t have the preservation of God’s inspired, inerrant words today in the KJV, then where is it? God did not lie. He promised to preserve His words and God is faithful to His promises. I believe the evidence points to the KJV. Those of the opposing viewpoint would point to “the originals”. But what originals? Where are they?
A collection of all the original autographs don’t exist. What we have are copies of copies passed down from generation to generation and today translated in the KJV. If the KJV does not preserve for us God’s inspired and perfect words today, which text does?
You can disagree with this position all you want to. But the evidence presented in this article proves that there were Christians who believed EXACTLY what I believe way before Ruckman or Wilkinson were born.
Here is more evidence. The following is a statement from Dr. Henry Alford, a proponent of the Alexandrian manuscripts who helped to pave the way for the modern Critical Texts even before Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT came out. It is his commentary on Heb. 10:23:
“Hebrews 10:23 (KJV) "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith, without wavering..." We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder, through centuries. The word FAITH, given here by the A.V., instead of HOPE — breaking up the beautiful triad of versus 22, 23, 24 ~ faith, hope, love — was a mere mistake, "hope" being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God! [The New Testament for English Readers vol. 4, pg. 1546 (written ca. 1860)] http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/quotesbt.htm”
This was written around 1860! Notice that in the mid-1800s Alford also complained about Bible-believers during his time that believed the KJV was infallible.
The evidence is undisputable. There are plenty of examples of those who stood for the same things we do before the era of Ruckman or Wilkinson. Our beliefs did not originate with Ruckman nor Wilkinson. Concerning Wilkinson’s contribution to the current movement of KJV defense, Dr. Phil Stringer states the following on pgs. 42-43 in his booklet Ready Answers:
“The arguments of Kutilek, Hudson, Williams and others distort the situation. First, there is nothing new or original in Wilkinson’s book (I have a copy). His historical arguments are a restatement of Frederick Nolan’s An Inquiry into the 7 Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, published in 1815. The same arguments about church history are seen in the writings of R.L.Dabney and Louis Gaussen in the 1800’s and before that in the writings of John Calvin and Francis Turretin. His refutation of Westcott and Hort had already been made by Dean John Burgon, Edward Miller and F.A.Scrivener. His doctrinal arguments about the Scripture had already been made by a number of Church of England, Lutheran, Calvinist and Baptist preachers and writers.
To declare that Wilkinson taught something new about the doctrine of Scripture or the history of the text is to declare yourself ignorant of hundreds of years of debate about the doctrine of Scripture and the history of the transmission of the text.”
A WORD ABOUT WESTCOTT & HORT
Our opponents will accuse us of a double-standard in these matters when we point out the theological heresies of B.F.Westcott and F.J.A.Hort. But in doing so, they are missing the point and failing to see the difference. The point is that Westcott and Hort’s inferior theology is what led them to an inferior view of the Bible and translation theory.
It cannot be proven that Benjamin Wilkinson’s theology drove him to his conclusions concerning the Bible issue because first off there were those who held to such a position way before Wilkinson’s writings, as we have already documented. These individuals that pre-date Wilkinson were not Seventh Day Adventists. Secondly, the fact that Seventh Day-Adventists today do not hold his view proves that his theology could not have motivated his views on Bible texts.
The same can be said of Dr. Peter Ruckman. Ruckman received his formal theological training at Bob Jones University. As we all know, BJU is a Fundamentalist school that upholds the Critical Text. So the theological training Dr. Ruckman received at BJU could not have motivated his position on the KJV.
Westcott and Hort were indeed heretics. Their denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ, denial of an eternal and literal hell, sympathy and support for Darwin’s evolution theory, belief in the universal Fatherhood of God (the belief that all will eventually be saved, even Satan), purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and other liberal views is what led them to treat the Bible as any other man-made literature. They held to a liberal view of theology and thus a liberal view of the scriptures themselves. For sake of time and space, I will not elaborate on all this. For those interested there is already good material that documents Westcott and Hort’s apostasy. Some good booklets that present this information are Dr. D.A.Waite’s Heresies of Westcott and Hort and Westcott’s Clever Denial of Christ’s Bodily Resurrection which are available at www.deanburgonsociety.org. Also, Dr. Phil Stringer’s booklet entitled The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy. Also Wilkinson discusses Westcott and Hort in his treatise which can be found in D. O. Fuller’s Which Bible, a book that I highly recommend.
The point is this. The false textual theories of Westcott and Hort are rooted in a theological liberalism and a heretical perspective of the scriptures. Our views of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Preservation of the scriptures are rooted in an orthodox perspective of the scriptures that Bible-believing Christianity has held on to all throughout history. Therefore, Fundamentalists today who defend the Critical Texts are defending a text and translation theories that are the result of liberalism, modernism, apostasy, and heresy. This is a serious matter. Plus, their position is the younger one, not ours.
There is a difference. When the source of your position is liberal and heretical, complaints against such are valid. Our opponents know that Westcott and Hort were apostates so I feel that they have created these guilt-by-association labels to Ruckman and Wilkinson to try and counter our valid complaints against the liberalism of Westcott and Hort. But it won’t work. Because as we have already documented, such presuppositions are historically inaccurate. Our position is a traditional position that Bible-believing Christianity has held to throughout history.
History of Bible manuscripts demonstrates for us that the type of text represented in the Traditional Text (or Received Text) family can be traced from the KJV and other faithful TR-based translations in existence today all the way back to the Apostolic age (in the Italic version and Syrian Peshitta). In other words, there is an unbroken chain of manuscript evidence from the Apostolic age to today supporting the type of text that underlies the KJV. Dr. D.A.Waite demonstrates this evidence on pgs 44-48 of his book Defending the King James Bible under the heading The Thirty-Seven Historical Evidences Supporting the Textus Receptus. This evidence demonstrates the type of text that represents the fulfillment of God’s promises to preserve his pure words forever. Therefore, our whole position on the Textual issue is rooted in the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation as found in the word of God.
Even Hort, according to his own writings, recognized that the Traditional Texts were the prominent text of God’s word being used by orthodox Christianity from the 4th to the 19th century. All throughout these ages, orthodox Christianity unanimously rejected the Alexandrian type manuscripts such as Vaticanus. It wasn’t until Tishendorf discovered Sinaiticus in the early 1800s that any significant amount of attention (outside of the Catholic church) was ever directed toward the Alexandrian manuscripts. And it wasn’t really until 1881 that the Critical Text began to develop a following through Westcott and Hort’s Critical Greek NT. You mean to say that for all these centuries orthodox Christianity was without the true and pure words of God? Is it to be believed that Westcott and Hort were the “saviours” that restored for us the true representation of the original words of God? My Bible does not promise for us Bible Restoration, but rather Bible Preservation! And considering that the Church of Jesus Christ is the pillar and ground of the truth, I refuse to believe that God preserved the true copies of his word through the Catholic church and liberals.
The Alexandrian manuscripts have been around since the 4th century. But true Christianity (non-Catholic) unanimously rejected them until the turn of the 20th century. For 20 centuries, the predominant representations of God’s pure words were the Traditional Texts, which underlie our KJV. The modern day Critical Text movement is a result of an apostate era amongst orthodox Christianity and it was brought to significance by two liberals named Westcott and Hort. That is not a guilt-by-association argument. That is a fact!
The idea that the modern day KJV movement was brought to significance by Wilkinson and Ruckman are not facts. That is false. Therein is the difference.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the guilt-by-association argument is silly. It is a flawed logic. It doesn’t work. Some of us refuse to fall for it.
With all due respect, the fact remains that our belief that the KJV is without error did not originate with Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Our belief in the superiority of the traditional Received Texts and the KJV as opposed to the Critical Texts and the modern versions did not originate with a Seventh Day Adventist like Benjamin Wilkinson.
Finally, that the Critical Text position has its roots in the liberalism is not merely a guilt-by-association tactic made for the sake of arguing. It is truth that demonstrates a corrupt source that is responsible for a corrupt result.
May God open the eyes of those who have been conditioned through their alma-mater to keep their minds trapped in a box which disables them to see clearly the true historic position of Bible-believing Christianity throughout the ages concerning the pure words of God.
(The original edition of this article was written on July 15, 2008. It was revised and updated on August 24, 2021.)