'The Grass Withereth, the Flower Fadeth but the Word of our God shall Stand Forever.'

[Alan Dale Gross]

"We shall need the Lord Jesus in the hour of death,
we shall need Him in the morning of the Resurrection.

"We should recognize our need of Him now.

"We Partake of Him, not through some ceremony, wherein a mysterious life takes hold of us.

"When we receive by Faith the written Word of God,
the Good Pleasure of the Lord is upon us and we Partake of Him.

"Through this Word, we receive the Power of God,
the same Word by which He Upholds all things,
by which He Swings the mighty worlds and suns through the deeps of the stellar Universe.

"This Word is able to Save us and to Keep us Forever.

"This Word shall conduct us to our Father's Throne on High.

'The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:
but the Word of our God shall Stand Forever.'"


As Benjamin Wilkinson, PhD, closes his splendid book,
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, with those words,
so every born-again Christian can probably echo the same.
...

Then, there is this nice poem;

"The starry firmament on high
And all the glories of the sky,
Yet shine not to Thy praise, O Lord,
So brightly as Thy written Word.

"The Hope that Holy Word supplies
Its Truths Divine and precepts wise,
In each a heavenly beam I see,
And every beam conducts to Thee.

"Almighty Lord, the sun shall fail,
The moon her borrowed glory veil,
And deepest reverence hush on high
The joyful chorus of the sky.

"But fixed for Everlasting Years.
Unmoved amid the wreck of spheres,
Thy Word shall Shine in cloudless day,
When Heaven and Earth have passed away."

 

[37818]

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Logos1560]

As Benjamin Wilkinson, PhD, closes his splendid book,
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,

This unreliable book is not a splendid book.

Benjamin George Wilkinson (1872-1968) was Dean of Theology at a Seventh-Day Adventist college. Benjamin Wilkinson favorably quoted Ellen G. White and other Seventh-Day Adventist authors.

The main problem with Wilkinson's book is that much of the information is inaccurate or false; nevertheless, this same information is often repeated in fundamentalist KJV-only publications without careful and thorough research to check its validity. In 2005, KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that some of Wilkinson’s “history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist ’prophetess’ Ellen G. White” and that “Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is ’preserved uncorrupted’ from Ellen White’s Great Controversy” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 13).

One reason Benjamin Wilkinson objected to the Revised Version was because it robbed Adventists of several of their favorite KJV proof texts for soul-sleep and Saturday Sabbath-keeping. Standish claimed that “the King James Version portrays the sleep of death awaiting the resurrection through clearly translated texts” (Modern Bible Versions Unmasked, p. 25).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

While the wikipedia.org article begins by saying,
"Our Authorized Bible Vindicated is a book written by Seventh-day Adventist scholar Benjamin G. Wilkinson advocating the King James Only (KJO) position, published in 1930, the King James Only position can only be said to have begun with the publication of Peter Ruckman's first book, in 1965, with most of his material popularizing the KJO position being published in the late 1990s.

So, to say that "Benjamin G. Wilkinson advocated the King James Only (KJO) position, in 1930, is out of range and pretty far off from what is trying to be said, for that author to be associated with the indefensible position held by the majority of those called KJO that didn't begin until the 1960s and, therefore, it can only be being said as a condemning disparagement.*

Also, on their page for The Trinitarian Bible Society, under the bold heading,

King James Only [edit]​

the wikipedia.org site has already gone about labeling them KJO*, by using that heading, it says, "The Trinitarian Bible Society has been associated with the King James Only movement, due to its exclusive sales of the KJV Bible in English and number of articles defending the KJV and against other modern versions such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV.[4]

"However, the Society stated, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."[5]"

So, why would Wikipedia take it upon itself to refer to The Trinitarian Bible Society as being a part of the King James Only Movement*, again, despite what they go on to quote the Society as saying for themself, after they lable them KJO, "Unlike others in the King James Only movement, the Society claims, "The supernatural power involved in the process of inspiration, and in the result of inspiration, was exerted only in the original production of the sixty-six Canonical books of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16)?," if not for their intention to continually associate the Society with the indefensible positions held by the majority of those called KJO, as a condemning disparagement.*


*The indefensible positions held by the majority of those called KJO and, therefore, for others who prefer The King James Version for other very rational reasons, seen down below**, to be slurred by associating them with these KJV Movement* beliefs, can only be said to be done so, as desperate condemning disparagements, trying to relate them to the irrational beliefs of the KJO Movement shown in bold brown, below:

Christian apologist James White believes most KJV-Onlyists would belong to the group that believes the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be an English preservation of the very words of God and that they are as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts.

Often this group excludes other English versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only English Bible sanctioned by God and should never be changed, or in KJVO group who believe in, "The KJV As New Revelation" – This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.[8]

In general, it is said that KJV Only advocates believe that God guided the compiler of the Textus Receptus to create a Greek text that is identical to the original biblical text.

Much Truth Revealed by God in The Bible has not been seen and appreciated by some of His children, yet, as the casualty of them simply not interpreting the PASSAGES by the Letter and the Spirit, LITERALLY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

**The only two issues pertinent and rational reasons for any discussion of The King James Version and other previous English versions and any other versions from which it was based and recent English versions and those of other languages, have to do with "contending for the faith once delivered to the saints", held by God's people, since the times of the writing of The New Testament, and that is of their having maintained their beliefs in;

The Bible Doctrines of The Inspiration of The Scriptures
and The Preservation of The Scriptures.

With the abandonment of any belief in:

The Bible's Doctrine of The Inspiration of Scripture,
with Its Divine Author being God, Himself,

and adopting a position for translating 'The Bible' as if it were any other book,

and by dispensing with:

The Bible Doctrine of The Preservation of The Scriptures,

and taking upon themselves a self-declared mandate:

to "Reconstruct" 'The Bible', instead,

(as if none of the saints in the previous 18 Centuries, or so,
had a Reliable copy of The Bible in any language, for all Faith and Practice),

anyone initiating any attempt at 'translating the bible',
by translating 'The Bible' as if it were any other book,
as opposed to having been God Breathed,

and to "Reconstruct" 'The Bible', instead
and not holding to The Bible's mandate
in The Doctrine of The Preservation of The Scriptures,

have departed from "The faint once given to the saints",
and are acting in clear opposition
to the reading of The Preserved Words of The Holy Bible,
and are doing something God Never Called them to do,

before Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, for example,
ever spotted one drop of ink onto a piece of paper.

Everything that happened after that is just a matter of Recorded History,
regarding those two admittedly Godless missteps, in infinantly errant planning.

 

[Logos1560]

With the abandonment of any belief in:

The Bible's Doctrine of The Inspiration of Scripture,
with Its Divine Author being God, Himself,

and adopting a position for translating 'The Bible' as if it were any other book,

and by dispensing with:

The Bible Doctrine of The Preservation of The Scriptures,

Believers who disagree with modern, human KJV-only reasoning have not abandoned the Bible's doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture with its divine author being God, Himself, and they do not adopt a position for translating 'The Bible' as if it were any other book. They also do not dispense with the Bible doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures. You misunderstand or misrepresent what believers believe who disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

KJV-only advocates may be the ones who have in effect abandoned the Bible's true doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture when they try to claim inspiration for the KJV. The Bible does not teach that the process of the making of post-NT Bible translations is by a miracle of inspiration. It is the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles that is by the miracle of direct inspiration of God.

 

[Logos1560]

The faith once delivered to the saints did not include any exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation--the KJV.

The faith once delivered to the saints did not include modern, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

 

[Logos1560]

Reformer Francis Turretin (1623-1687) pointed out: "Our teaching is that only the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have been and are authentic in the sense that all controversies concerning faith and religion, and all versions, are to be tested and examined by them" (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 126; see also Institutes, Vol. 1, pp. 112-113). Francis Turretin also declared: "The question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of the Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it" (Doctrine of Scripture, pp. 113-114; Institutes, Vol. 1, p. 106). Francis Turretin (as translated into English by George Musgrave Giger) wrote: “The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former” (Institutes, Vol. 1, p. 71). Francis Turretin asserted: “We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (or at least corruption that is universal)” (p. 111). Francis Turretin wrote: “If the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are not authentic (authentias), there would be no authentic version, since none besides this has a divine testimony of its own authenticity” (p. 114).


Concerning Bible translations, Francis Turretin observed: “Although their utility is great for the instruction of believers, yet no version either can or ought to be put on an equality with the original, much less be preferred to it. For no version has anything important which the Hebrew or Greek source does not have more fully, since in the sources not only the matter and sentences, but even the very words were directly dictated by the Holy Spirit” (Institutes, Vol. 1, p. 125). Francis Turretin noted: “Conformity to the original is different from equality. Any version (provided it is faithful) is indeed conformable to the original because the same doctrine as to substance is set forth there. But it is not on that account equal to it because it is only a human and not a divine method of setting it forth” (p. 126). Francis Turretin asserted: “Because it [a version or translation] sets forth to us in human words the word of God, it follows that it can admit to correction, not with regard to the doctrine itself (which still remains the same), but with regard to the terms which especially in difficult and obscure passages can be rendered by different persons according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (pp. 126-127). Concerning the Greek Septuagint, Francis Turretin wrote: “Although we do not deny that it is of great authority in the church, yet we regard this authority as human, not divine, since what was done by the translators was by human effort only, not by prophets and men who were God-breathed (theopneustois) by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (p. 128). Francis Turretin observed: “Now if they consulted together, they did not prophesy. For the sacred writers never consulted with each other discussing everything which they might write” (Ibid.). Francis Turretin noted: “The long use of a version connected with reason can give authority to it, but not authenticity” (p. 134).