Talk:Benjamin G. Wilkinson

Untitled
This is not really a biography - he is obscure and little is known about him personally. He is historically significant as a contributor to the King James Only movement, which is his only known claim to historical fame. Scott1329m 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilkinson's writings on Church history are more relevant than his position on the King James Bible. His book "Truth Triumphant" is a popular source that those of us in the Sabbath-keeping Christian movement use. It traces the historical roots of Sabbath-keeping Christians from apostolic times through the middle ages and reformation.02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)~erman1958 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erman 1958 (talk • contribs)

The Current Adventist Position
It is simply not correct to say that the Adventists use the King James Bible in any sort of exclusionary sense. They recently came out with the "Clear Word" paraphrase which is very different, Ellen White sometimes quoted from the Revision and the General Conference has no objection to modern versions, which are used by many in their demonination. Among some of the more historic Adventists (e.g. those involved with the health sanitarium movement) there is more of a King James Bible perspective, but even there, there is no one general rule.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Founder of the KJB movement?
One-sided opponents of the AV have tried to paint Wilkinson as virtually the founder of the AV beliefs. By quoting the contras to the AV purity (One Bible Only?) a one-sided perspective is given. It could easily be argued (e.g. in the book by Joey Faust, The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement) that the roots of the movement go back hundreds of years. Similarly it could be argued that Wilkinson did not have a pure AV position. Also that Edward Hills, a textual scholar, had more influence in the 20th century.

My point here is not to debate the issue. The point is that the reference as placed back in is one-sided, only quoting a book from those who are contra the AV position for whom Wilkinson is a convenient attack spot because his adventist views are not viewed highly by most Christian evangelicals debating the Bible issue.

And if the reference is to remain, the points otherwise like I mention above should be put in for balance.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Benjamin G. Wilkinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914215802/http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/ANSWERS-TO-OBJECTIONS-Wilkinson.pdf to http://storage.amazingdiscoveries.org/assets/files/ADDownloads/ANSWERS-TO-OBJECTIONS-Wilkinson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Biography section
The second part of this paragraph reads as arguments for/against NT texts justifying Wilkinson, rather than only a description of Wilkinson’s own claims about them. (Grammatically, the sentence about John Burgon is unclear as to which text is being referenced.) “Wilkinson criticized Westcott and Hort,[1] believing they made changes to the text used in translation. Due to the fact that they rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and instead used their revised Greek text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[4] Those who preferred not to use the Textus Receptus, such as Westcott and Hort, used what Wilkinson claimed were corrupted manuscripts. Similarly, an earlier writer on the textual issues, John Burgon, called it a "fabricated text", and "among the most corrupt documents extant"[5] and likened the primary manuscripts used, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[5] .[6] The Codex Vaticanus that has come down to us had portions which have been collated and changed or edited by several scribes over the centuries, with many exclusions [7][8][9] and errors that were intended to be corrections made in the process,[10][11] while the Codex Sinaiticus has known textual variants in its text and exclusions.[12][13][14] Bluepenciltime (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)