Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Seeking scholastic research

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Seeking scholastic research

    Hello everyone,

    If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book defending the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

    If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book refuting the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

    Ideally I would like a book that is based upon scholarship and not opinion or even worse, plagiarism of an earlier source.

    I myself, having started out with a Nelson King James Bible, used a modern version for a while, and now I have a Cambridge (PCE) KJV from Allan. The argument is settled in my own mind, I will continue to use the KJV, regardless of evidence presented by either side. Still, I would like to read both arguments and rather than collect multiple books I seek one from each position that each position considers their best. I would also like to avoid posting this question is too many forums.

    Any help/recommendations would be appreciated.

    I do hope I have put this in the proper place, if not please move it to where it should belong.


  2. Default iron sharpeneth, tin rusteth

    Hi Folks,

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley
    If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book defending the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

    If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book refuting the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

    Ideally I would like a book that is based upon scholarship and not opinion or even worse, plagiarism of an earlier source.
    Good questions, Harley. My preliminary view is that no one book does the King James Bible position full justice, or even offers an ultra-solid and strong and properly contextual presentation. However, there are a number of books that are respected that I have never seen. So I am going to have to think about this a bit. William Grady's Final Authority was one of the first two books I read on the topic, and it still has a lot of pizazz, however I doubt it really mustard-cuts your question.

    And there is only a "rust standard" or at best a "tin standard" when it comes to books opposing the King James Bible position, so that one is even harder.

    I'll try for a bit more on this in a couple of days.


  3. #3

    Default Wilkinson book

    Hi Everyone,

    Not sure if this question belongs here, but since we are talking about KJV defense books........

    I am reading Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D.

    A question has come up concerning what the author means on page 20 about Constantine choosing the Hexapla Bible of Origen and ordering 50 Greek Bibles from it and that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may be connected to these 50.

    Question: Wasn't the Hexapla, and the 5th column (LXX) just the Old Testament Scriptures? Did Eusebius edit the fifth column and add the New Testament Scriptures? Is Wilkinson saying that the Hexapla Bible included the New Testament? Is he saying that the edited version of the fifth column included it?


  4. #4

    Default Wilkinson's Defense

    Hi again,

    Steven directed me to an online resource where Wilkinson defends against his critics. Here is an excerpt that pertains to my question:

    My Reviewers seek to indict me for considering that the Eusebian New Testament part of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS was the text of Origen, as they seem to admit was the case with the Old Testament. (Sec. I, pp. 27, 28) Then they must indict Dr. Price, Dr. Robertson, Dr. Gregory, Burgon and Mille and Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Tischendorf even; for they all assume that the N.T. part of the Eusebian Bibles were of the Eusebio-Origen type as well as the Old Testament portion.

    I wrote in my book (pages 20, 21) that "both these MSS were written in Greek, each contained the whole Bible." Statements from Dr. Robertson and others prove:

    (1) That the Old Testament part of the Constantine Bibles was the Hexapla of Origen, and

    (2) That it was bound with a Greek New Testament in the same Bible. I have right here raised a strong probability of a relationship between the Hexapla of the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Constantine Bibles. Now I did bring such good authorities to show that the Old Testament portion of the Constantine Bibles was the Hexapla, that my Reviewers admitted proof on that point. They say, (Section I, p. 28):

    "The conclusion is, therefore unavoidable that the fifty copies of the Hexapla made for Constantine were of the fifth column Septuagint, which is confined to the Old Testament."

    Very well; when they say that the fifty copies made for Constantine possessed for the old Testament the Hexapla, they admit that the Old Testament of the fifty copies was of a Eusebio-Origen type, since the text is Origen and the manuscript upon which the text is written is of Eusebius; and this you note is all I claimed in my book. For in my book I said (page 21):

    "Whether or not the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were actually two of the fifty Bibles furnished by Eusebius for Constantine, at least they belonged to the same family as the Hexapla, the Eusebio-Origin type."

    More here:


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Chicago, IL


    Hello Tandi,

    I read through the reply by Wilkinson. I think that he needs to simply admit his error and its grandiosity. His response requires speculative interpretation of his sources, and he should have admitted this upfront. I, however, consider the contempt with which he holds patristics and papists to be his desert as well, so I choose to assume that he made a serious mistake, and he should admit it.

    kol tuv,

  6. Default

    Hi Tandi,

    This approach is a sinking morass of ignorance that will ensnare all who enter into it. Wilkinson (ca. 1930) is too early in the debate. I recognize that most of what Wilkinson wrotes, and what you summarize, is from Eusebius' history of the church. So, I'm not sure what Psander means by "speculative interpretation."

    What we really need to live up to the assumption of a pure Bible is to note that, as Wilkinson said, there are two "Bibles." Now I have not read but swatches of Wilkinson, so I cannot say whether what I am about to write is in agreement with him or not, but the two lines, Antiochian, and Alexandrian are God's and Satan's respectively. If that wording is too strong, substitute real and counterfeit instead. The former satisfies and assuages the truth-seeking soul, the latter aggravates and dessicates the truth-seeking soul. Those who are liars from birth (Psalm 58:3) see the former as froward (Psalm 18:26) and "prefer" (their word, not mine), the latter. The difference is that Antiochian text advocates believe that the Bible is a revelation, preserved (kept) by God inerrently and kept (defended) by its believers (Psalm 12:7; John 14:23). The Alexandrian text's advocates, however, believe that God did not keep his Bible (Psalm 12:7, "people"; John 14:23 "obey" in their version) and that God calls them to restore the Bible. Clearly, the Antiochians believe they can have the words of God in their hands whereas the Alexandrians believe "only the original autographs were inspired," a heresy invented by Warfield ca. 1850 and reflected in many a church's statement of faith these days.

    Why do I say that Wilkinson is too early? Because iron sharpeneth iron and the debate has now had a century worth of honing. Grady's book is excellent. So is Floyd Jones' "Which Version is the Bible?" But the best of all the ones I've read is "Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical theology of the perfect preservation of Scripture," Kent Brandenburg, Ed., Pillar and Ground Publishing: available at and from This book is so powerful that it has even been suppressed by the Fundamentalists, even more, if it were possible, than the works of Dr. Peter Ruckman.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts