A Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” by B. G. Wilkinson

Confuses Appreciation with Attack

The author construes recognition or appreciation of the A.R.V. as an “attack” on the King James Version p. 74. The right of a competent minister to use the version of his choice in harmony with general denominational usage is thus challenged. It does not follow that use of the A.R.V. is “warfare” (p. 88) against the A.V. No one in this movement has for a moment thought of “throwing away” (p. 89) the King James Version. Those who appreciate the accuracy of the A.R.V. do not thereby depreciate the beauty and value of the A.V. No one contends that the A.R.V. is without imperfections, or that all changes made were for the best. There are certain unfortunate renderings in it, the same as in the A.V. There are instances wherein the personal views of the Revisers are doubtless reflected, the same as is patently observable in the A.V. But they both convey God’s authoritative message to men. RABV 4.2

It is manifestly most unwise to create the impression of hostility toward any standard version, as it might easily be regarded as an attack upon the very Word itself. In this skeptical age, when we are trying to revive faith in the Word of God and to lead as many as possible to accept its teachings and to render obedience thereunto at whatever cost, that our work should be made more difficult by this unnecessary issue is distressing indeed. RABV 5.1

The claims of this book place all users and preachers of the R. V. end A.R.V. under ban as pro-Roman, higher critical, or apostate. Moreover, aspersion is thus placed by the author upon the ministry and leadership of this movement because of the use of the R.V. and A.R.V., and upon Ellen G. White because of her free reading and published use of these two Versions, quoted hundreds of times in her later books as the authoritative Word of God. It is, of course, well known that our standard publications in English, since 1901, use the two versions with impartiality, and as equally authoritative. RABV 5.2

The comparison of the blemishes in the A.V. to the five scars on the resurrection body of Christ (pp. 180, 181) is a travesty upon our divine Sacrifice for sin. And the comparison of the Received Text to the star of Bethlehem (pp. 178, 179) borders perilously on sacrilege! RABV 5.3