The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of
"KJV - Onlyism"
The Bloodline of History
by DOUG KUTILEK
BENJAMIN WILKINSON
·
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 (died 1968),
through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, Mr. Wilkinson
wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, a book of several hundred pages which
attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt chiefly because it was awash
in a vast ocean of error).
·
In that book, Wilkinson attacked the "Westcott-Hort Greek text,"
in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious
ad hominem method; I exposed and refuted his line of argument in "Erasmus
and His Theology," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 19, no. 20, October 15,
1985, pgs. 3-4)
·
He also expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version
New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism
of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath-keeping
(Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews
9:27). [some of Wilkinson's grosser errors I documented in "Wilkinson's
Incredible Errors," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall, 1990
]
·
Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12: 6-7 specifically to
the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse
six [when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of
verse five, as I demonstrated in my essay, "A Careful Investigation of
Psalm 12: 6-7," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 21, October 14, 1983,
later issued in booklet form as "Why Psalm 12: 6-7 is not a Promise of
the Divine Preservation of Scripture"]
·
Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval
Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and
that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type [ all of which is
demonstrably false, as I showed in "The Truth about the Waldensian Bible
and the Old Latin Version," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 2, no. 2, Summer,
1991 ] Thus Wilkinson , the first generation . . .
J. J. RAY
·
Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have
been had his errors died with him!), until 1955 when J. J. Ray (died early 1980s),
who is self-described as "business manager, missionary, Bible teacher,"
published a little volume, God Wrote Only One Bible. In his book, Ray heavily
plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and
propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements [ the Fact of Ray's
plagiarism and dependence is documented in Gary Hudson's article, "The
Real 'Eye Opener'," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring, 1991
]
·
Ray's book has gone through numerous printings, with total copies
numbering perhaps in the tens of thousands. I first saw a copy myself in 1971
as a first-year student at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, where
I was also introduced - by students from Ohio - to Ruckman's Bible Babel and
Fuller's Which Bible? I find it of particular interest that Ray acknowledges
that there are some erroneous translations in the KJV which do demand revision
(pgs. 30-31, 102 ), a position today's KJV-Only mainstream would consider rank
heresy. With Ray, the second generation . . .
DAVID OTIS FULLER
·
The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was the
late David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as
part of the third generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the
dedication of Counterfeit or Genuine (1975), Ray's book God Wrote Only One Bible
"moved me to begin this fascinating study." Ray and his book were
also repeatedly noted in Which Bible? (pgs. 2-4). I imagine the scenario went
something like this: Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information;
Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then
reprints Wilkinson in Which Bible?
·
In 1970 Fuller issued Which Bible?, which was in its 5th edition
by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of these pages, ALMOST HALF were taken from
Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, with some editing, first to conceal
from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst
of his errors.
·
According to D. A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJV-Only
matters, Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately
concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [ noted at
end of this section ], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand."
Fuller's haphazard "back and fill" operation aimed at editing out
some of Wilkinson's grosser errors failed miserably to make a silk purse out
of a literary sow's ear, with most errors left untouched [ see the expose, "The
Great 'Which Bible?' Fraud," by myself and Gary Hudson, Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 2, Summer, 1990 ]
·
As reproduced in Which Bible?, Wilkinson's material is still plagued
by blatant misstatements of the facts, distortions, misrepresentations and half-truths;
what else would you expect to find in a devoted cultist's writings? [ as noted
above, see my article "Wilkinson's Incredible Errors," Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall, 1990 ].
·
It is this same David Otis Fuller who knowingly misrepresented the
views of Spurgeon regarding the Textus Receptus Greek text, KJV, and English
Revised Version [ I exposed Fuller's deception with extensive quotation and
documentation from Spurgeon's own writings in, "Spurgeon & Bible Translations:
the Abuse Continues," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 1, Spring,
1990, published later in booklet form as An Answer to David Otis Fuller by Pilgrim
Publications].
·
And it is this same David Otis Fuller who grossly misrepresented
the views of Robert Dick Wilson concerning the English Bible. Fuller claimed
that the views of Wilson and himself in this regard were exactly the same, that
is, that Wilson, too, found no errors in the English translation and none in
the underlying texts in Hebrew and Greek. Anyone familiar with Wilson's writings
at all knows that Wilson believed that only the original text was inspired,
that often the translation must be corrected on the basis of the original, and
that, though current Hebrew copies of the Old Testament are generally reliable,
sometimes the ancient versions (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, etc.) preserve
the true original reading in places where the Hebrew has been corrupted in the
copying process [ see Wilson's remarks in Studies in the Book of Daniel, vol.
I, pgs. 84-85, and A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, pg. 61].
·
Fuller also dragged Anglican priest John William Burgon in as "witness"
for his own point of view, even founding a "society" named in Burgon's
honor, though the society [ currently led by D. A. Waite] propagated views the
late Dean Burgon would have rejected. Contrary to David Otis Fuller, not only
did Burgon not believe the textus receptus was unalterably "perfect"
and the KJV unchangeably correct, he was convinced that the textus receptus
needed extensive revision (proposing more than 120 changes in Matthew's Gospel
alone), and stated in print that in some places the English Revised New Testament
of 1881 was a decided improvement over KJV obscurities and inaccuracies [ see
the direct quotations from Burgon's famous book The Revision Revised, in Baptist
Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 2, pgs. 4, 11, 16 ] and Gary Hudson's article,
"Why Dean Burgon Would Not Join the 'Dean Burgon Society',"
·
Fuller, in summary, was ready and willing to conceal the truth about
Wilkinson, and deliberately distort the opinions of Spurgeon and Wilson, men
he claimed to admire, and to invoke the name of John William Burgon, to deceive
his readers and to bolster his own views, even though his (Fuller's) views were
very much at odds with the beliefs of these men. Fuller's blatant dishonesty
and disregard for the truth does not fill one with confidence in examining anything
he wrote or edited on the Bible translation "controversy," and yet
Fuller is a " founding father " & " leading light "
of the KJV- Only " movement " !
·
The book Fuller edited, Which Bible?, is a hodge-podge of writings,
many by authors such as Robert Dick Wilson, Zane Hodges and others, who distinctly
reject the Textus Receptus-Only/KJV-Only point of view [ and at least one of
the writers who gave Fuller permission to include something he had written,
complained about the way Fuller had altered the writer's point of view in the
editing process ], and actually gives some information which refutes some of
the extremes of this movement. In spite of its inherent defects, inherently
contradictory points of view, and frequent errors, Which Bible? in numerous
printings & at least five editions, has had a very extensive influence in
shaping much of the current debate and disseminating much of the misinformation
that characterizes KJV-Onlyism today. Without any doubt at all, I am convinced
that the vast majority of this highly destructive controversy is a direct result
of Fuller's deceptive and inflammatory book, Which Bible?, and that he must
bear the odium of stirring up strife among brethren (Proverbs 6:19). [Fuller
died in 1988]
·
Note [ by Bob L. Ross ] : After repeated requests by Fuller and his
friends, Robert Kregel of Kregel Publications printed Fuller's three "KJV-Only"
books [not using the Kregel Pub. name]. He personally told me that Fuller "begged
me to publish his books" but did not inform Kregel they contained the writings
of an Adventist.
PETER S. RUCKMAN
Self-described " Restorer "
of the ' Missing Link ' of KJV ' Final Authority '
Peter S . Ruckman on the KJV -
"I've NEVER
said that the KING JAMES BIBLE was Inspired, although I've broadly intimated
it sometimes ." [his booklet, "Why I Believe the King James Version
Is the Word of God" pg. 6 ]
"Not one time
did G OD guarantee that ONE of the translations was inspired ." [Bible
Believer's Bulletin, Nov. 91, pg. 10]
"Now, at no time have I stated flatly
that the A. V. 1611 was the ' verbally inspired Word of GOD . ' " Verbal
inspiration has to do with 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 and deals with the O RIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS,
as we all KNOW ." [Letter to Robert Sumner, 1971]
·
Also in the third generation, without question the most arrogant
and abusive of the KJV-Only partisans is Peter S. Ruckman, who passes for a
Baptist preacher and whose ranting have been thrust upon the public in a monthly
publication, Bible Believers' Bulletin, but especially in a series of uniformly
bound and uniformly bad books that are claimed to be commentaries on various
Bible books, topical books on Bible-related subjects, and books related to the
Bible text and translation issue. All of his writings are characterized by the
most vehement vilification and denunciation of everyone and anyone, lumping
together great defenders of the faith such as B. B. Warfield, A. T. Robertson,
& C. H. Spurgeon (when he's not falsely claiming Spurgeon's support for
his own views), with the likes of Wellhausen, Adolf Hitler, and Harry Fosdick.
·
Far worse is the torrent of errors that flood each work and virtually
each page of Ruckman's every published work. He single-handedly has injected
more misinformation into the controversy than all other writers combined.
·
Note [ by Bob L. Ross ] : While Ruckman brays a lot about "Final
Authority," his "hermeneutical" approach to the King James Bible
is so nonsensical that he is nowhere close to what we understand to be the doctrinal,
practical, and prophetic teachings of Scripture. He has various "plans
of salvation," various "gospels," a 10-foot tall Antichrist who
arrives on a UFO, a "mark of the beast" applied by "two huge
black lips," baptism for salvation on Pentecost, and other such nonsense.
His "smoke" about "Final Authority" is just so much "hokey"
to beguile the gullible. He twists and distorts the KJV to make it "say"
what it does not say, and doesn't permit it to teach what it plainly says.
·
It was Ruckman who first propagated the erroneous idea that the KJV
has no copyright [ I exposed and refuted this error with extensive documentation
in "The KJV IS a Copyrighted Translation !" first published in The
Biblical Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 11, May 27, 1983, and reissued in a revised
and expanded form in Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 3, October, 1993
].
·
It was Ruckman who manufactured out of whole cloth the false claim
that no Protestant scholar has ever personally examined the Vaticanus manuscript
[ see for my refutation, "Ruckmanism: A Refuge of Lies," Baptist Biblical
Heritage, vol. 4, no. 4, January, 1994 ]
·
It was Ruckman who created out of thin air the absurd notion that
there was no Greek translation of the Old Testament until one was produced by
Origen in the third century A. D. [ proven false in my article "The Septuagint:
Riplinger's Blunders, Believe It or Not," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol.
5, no. 2, Third quarter, 1994 ]
·
And how was Ruckman drawn into the fray? What book influenced him?
Ruckman's first-born book on the subject (unfortunately not "still-born"),
The Bible Babel (1964) betrays unmistakable signs of heavy dependence on J.
J. Ray. Ruckman's chart of "corrupt" texts and versions facing pg.
28 is an abbreviation of Ray, pgs. 56-70; Ruckman's "tree" of "good"
versions facing pg. 73 is a virtual reproduction, with very minor alterations,
of Ray's chart on pg. 109; on pg. viii of the footnote references, Ruckman specifically
mentions Ray's book, though giving the title as "God Only Wrote One Book,"
which is typical of his level of accuracy! Just as Wilkinson misapplied Psalm
12: 6-7 to the KJV, as did Ray, well . . .so did Ruckman! Furthermore, in Ruckman's
so-called The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence ( 1970 ), Ruckman
specifically commends Ray (along with Edward F. Hills) as one of a very few
reliable writers on text and translation issues ( preface, pg. I ).
EDWARD F . HILLS & OTHERS
·
A word needs to be said here about Edward F. Hills, who wrote two
books that in part address the text and translation controversy, Believing Bible
Study (1967) and The King James Version Defended (1956, 1973), and who wrote
a chapter on Burgon in Fuller's Which Bible? The theme of Hills' work is the
defense of, not just the Byzantine text-type in general as the true original
form of the text of the New Testament, but the defense of the specific textus
receptus form of the Byzantine text, including the unique (i.e., unsupported)
readings in the textus receptus introduced by Erasmus (as the textus receptus
and the majority text as published by Hodges and Farstad differ in 1,838 specifics).
·
Hills, who did not advocate the inerrancy of the King James Version
nor the Origenian origin of the Septuagint, is neither a founding father nor
a star of the first magnitude of the KJV-Only movement, but may be viewed as
a secondary tributary, whose works are commonly cited wherever his words can
be made to support a writer's point. On the whole, Hills' writings are much
better-informed and more accurate than nearly all of the KJV-Only literature,
though he writes as one blinded to evidence by his presuppositions. [ An extended
analysis of Hills and his point of view was made by Dr. James A. Price, "King
James Only View of Edward F. Hills," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1,
no. 4, Winter 1990-91]
·
From Ruckman, have sprung, like the serpent heads from Hydra, a teeming
uncongealed mass of incredibly misinformed writers, editors, preachers and evangelists,
imagining that they are " defending the true faith " when in fact,
their ignorance of the truth is almost immeasurable. As John Broadus was wont
to say, it is amazing how much ignorance some men have been able to accumulate.
In truth, there are natural limits to everything, except human stupidity.
·
Among those heavily influenced by Fuller can be named D. A. Waite,
who now does a great deal of his own misleading, & E. L. Bynum. Also, Jack
Chick, [ CHICK PUBLICATIONS ] whose comic books have espoused KJV-Onlyism, has
acknowledged in letters that he is entirely dependent on Fuller and Ruckman
for his research. [ also see the footnotes in various Chick KJV - Only comics
& books ] I am reminded immediately of an ancient Jewish proverb: "If
you wish to strangle, be hanged on a good tree," that is, if you must rely
on an authority, you do well to make sure it is a reliable one.
GAIL RIPLINGER
·
Now, women are getting in on the KJV-Onlyism act, promoting and profiting
from the gullible multitude seduced by the sleight-of-hand tactics generally
employed. The latest piece of perverse propaganda is a huge pile of wasted paper
called NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS written by Ms. G. [Gail] A. Riplinger. This woman
said that God was the "author" [!] and she was His "secretary"
[!], hence "G" (God), "A" (and). . . Riplinger. She alleges
a "Satanic inspired conspiracy"[!] on the part of "modern Bible
versions" which is sponsored by the "New Age Movement."[!] [see
link above for one of our reviews - more articles to come.]
·
Along with other boasts, these claims were just "too much"
for even some fellow KJV-Onlyites to swallow, and Gail Riplinger's work has
been dubbed "an undependable book" by David W. Cloud, editor of O
TIMOTHY Magazine ( Vol. II, #8, 1994 ) [ re-named "O MADMAN" by Ms.
Riplinger ]. Cloud remarks that the claim by Riplinger that God was the "author"
is something that "even the most radical charismatic prophets hesitate
to use such intemperate language." Yet the book has received the unqualified
endorsement of KJV- Onlyites such as Chick, Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Texe Marrs,
J. R. Chambers, D. A. Waite, Walter Beebe & others who are "peddling"
it. There are a lot of KJV - Onlyites on the mailing lists of these men, hence
a lot of money to be made by selling this book to the gullible!
·
From Wilkinson in the first generation, through Ray in the second,
and Fuller and Ruckman in the third, the entire KJV-Only movement has arisen,
and every present-day KJV-Onlyite is, in varying ways, a direct spiritual descendant
of these ill-informed men. And as the movement has progressed from one generation
to the next, with each new generation arising from intellectually-incestuous
in-breeding, the views have become more radicalized and extreme.
·
First, the KJV was viewed as "better" than other English
versions, though not above some revision and correction (thus Ray); then, the
view was taken that the KJV was "error-free" (but not without insoluble
problems; thus Fuller); then, the KJV came to be accepted as "perfect,"
and infallible, unalterably exact, "superior" even to the Greek and
Hebrew texts from which it was made, and in fact contained "new revelations"
not found in the Greek and Hebrew (thus Ruckman); and now it is alleged by some
that a person "cannot be saved" unless through the English KJV (thus
Hyles and others), and all foreign Bibles should be revised to conform to the
KJV [ a view pushed by some idiot Americans visiting in Romania, by an ignorant
American missionary in Japan, and by a church in Arizona which insists that
the 1960 Reina-Valera Spanish translation, which has brought the conversions
of millions, is not the Word of God ], a view so absurd that only an American
could believe it.
·
The movement has become a vulgar caricature of itself, rushing at
break-neck speed to ever more extreme views, and as they grope about in the
intellectual smog of "KJV-Onlyism", having lost all perspective and
ability to discern truth from error, they become easy prey for every false doctrine.
One leading KJV-Only advocate in the upper Midwest was recently ostracized from
his circle of associates because he has begun espousing British Israelism, the
view that the English-speaking peoples are Israel (the view of Herbert W. and
Garner Ted Armstrong; this view arises naturally from KJV-Onlyism, for after
all, the English-speaking people must be special, since to them alone God gave
an infallible, inspired, perfectly preserved translation, . . .with 6 different
revisions . . .right?).
·
Every KJV-Only advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray,
Fuller and Ruckman, and all are the victims (unwitting, I hope) of the multitude
of gross distortions, errors, corruption's, misunderstandings, misrepresentations,
and, in some cases, out-right lies of these men. These men are collectively
a bruised reed of a staff, upon which if a man leans, it will pierce his hand.
They are unreliable in the extreme and are deserving of no confidence as to
the truthfulness of anything they affirm. I have no doubt that some will blissfully
continue in their ignorance, willfully ignorant of the truth, not seeing because
they DO NOT want to see.
·
"So then Wilkinson, when he had conceived, brought forth Ray,
and Ray, when he was full-grown, brought forth Fuller, Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger,
Hyles, Bynum, Gipp, Waite, Marrs ...unfortunately, others."
(End of Doug Kutilek's Article)