Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Bust Out Your Thesaurus

Jeffrey Nachimson has written a new article about me and in the spirit of being even handed, fair and balanced, I thought I would link it here.

Scholarship Only Hysteria

It may be a bit long and is certainly a tad ponderous for some readers, but he is quite certain that I am wrong, wrong, wrong, not to mention misguided and down right ignorant when it comes to understanding the history of KJV onlyism and the preservation of God's Word in only one translation. It is his article he was promising to write that I mentioned here.

He alerted me by email that he had written it and essentially stated I would be better off blogging against atheists and homosexuals, though he used an old English word describing a bundle of sticks in place of "homosexuals."

At any rate, I have only had opportunity to glance over it because I have been preparing to take a short trip with my family. I may respond to it at some point in the future if I have the time and willingness to do it, but some of the more notable highlights that I saw was Jeffrey's insistence that I am a disciple of Doug Kutilek by following blindly his research and his citations of alleged pre-Wilkinson KJV onlyists in the 1800s. Again, re-read my previous post Jeffrey is attempting to answer in order to understand the context of what I mean by "pre-Wilkinson KJV onlyists."

So, if you need something fun to do this weekend, give it a look over.



Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

I don't know Mr. Nachimson at all and neither would I necessarily approve in every way of the way he communicates his content (although it does make it more interesting), he generally exposes you and puts on you a good shellacking. He reveals your great dependence on Mr. Kutilek, who we come to find out, wasn't accurate in his representations of writings. People like yourself, who are usually wanting documentation, documentation, documentation, relied on undocumented opinion and stated it as fact. He reveals that in his article. I noticed that you immediately made a great deal of his communication style, which really deflects from the real issue here, doesn't it?

Isn't the goal to get at the truth? We should all be happy when we learn the truth, couldn't we? So perhaps you could admit where you were wrong.

4:00 PM, August 07, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I appreciate the review. I haven''t had the time or the desire to read through what he wrote in its entirety.

At any rate, I am still mystified as to how I am dependent upon Kutilek? And thus, have something to admit that is wrong. Is it because I agree with his assessment that much of modern day KJV onlyism has its roots with Wilkinson? At least that is what seems to be the basics of what Nachimson is arguing. He claims pre-Wilkinson KJV onlyists existed in the 1800s. And that seems to be the main thrust of his citations from a variety of out-of-print writers.

From what I understand from Kutilek, he never said there weren't supporters of the KJV before Wilkinson. Obviously there were. The issue is the many of the main talking points of KJV onlyists like the two stream of Bibles, the wickedness of W-H,etc., where developed originally from Wilkinson's ideas that were dishonestly republished by Fuller and Ray.

What I have always maintained, and I imagine Kutilek as well though I can't speak for him, is the need to show pre-Wilkinson versions of Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, and even Pete Ruckman. High Anglican clergy men pontificating about the glory of the KJV doesn't necessarily qualify as being KJV only in the manner I understand it.


6:04 AM, August 08, 2007  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

I don't believe like this guy on preservation as much as I don't believe like you do. However, he had some very revealing points. I had no idea what his view was until I read. I pop over here about once or twice a month and then skim through and read what is interesting to me. You have some provocative material. I do have a memory of a strong defense of Douglas Kutilek by you, despite errors I pointed out. This seemed to be tell-tale.

Let me give you just two of his major contradictions of you that ruin a whole line of thinking from you. I've never read Wilkinson, but what I have read is that KJVO get their point of view from him. What you wrote above alone is a problem. He shows plainly that Wilkinson doesn't have the same view as Riplinger, Gipp, and Ruckman, which makes it clear that someone hasn't actually read Wilkinson. That's number one. Number two is something else foundational. People write whole books against King James Onlyism, and to start, they can't define King James Onlyism. The authors who coined the terminology KJVO say that they can't put their finger on what it is. They say that the term itself is ambiguous. There is no standard definition, so that every King James Only guy is lumped under the same term. If the term is so ambiguous, then KJVO couldn't have been invented by Wilkinson. We would have a very uniform understanding that we got from him. The history then that you give and Kutilek strangely enough duplicates, moving from Wilkinson to Ray to Fuller, can't be true because these guys contradict each other in their material. He shows how the concept of KJVO has been widely held before the 20th century.

That's just two. The last one contains probably more than one. If you need more, I can do that, but I wouldn't if you didn't show you cared about these two.

By the way, I've shown clearly that my view of preservation is exactly that of the Westminster divines. That's well before Wilkinson. Your position is the brand new one historically, coming from Warfield's spin on the Westminster Confession.

4:01 PM, August 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home