A Grievous Wolf - Time for Truth

58
Richard Thomson and his drinking is, of course, only a means to an end for Wolf, by which he aims to
discredit the 1611 Holy Bible through an ad hominem attack on one of the translators. It would benefit
Wolf to study Billy Sunday’s famous Booze Sermon.
See www.biblebelievers.com/billy_sunday_booze.html.
As that sermon indicates, Sunday was one of the most outstanding Christian campaigners against alcohol
of all time. In addition, he was a thoroughgoing King James Bible believer who said that “When the
Bible (AV1611) says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the Devil!”
See Peter Amue the Bible Corrector Part 1, p 2, www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-avonly-7434.php.
Steadfast belief in the AV1611 is therefore instrumental and conspicuously effective in opposing alcohol
consumption, regardless of aspects of the personal lives of any of the translators. Wolf seems ignorant
of that fact of history.
He also appears ignorant of the first mention of wine in the scripture, which occurs in the very portion
of the scriptures that Richard Thomson helped translate and which Wolf mentions, the Books of Genesis
to Kings.
Genesis 9:21 states that “And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within
his tent.”
However partial any individual may be to “wine and strong drink” Numbers 6:3, the 1611 Holy Bible
clearly takes the diametrically opposite stance. Wolf can’t appreciate that because as Proverbs 24:7
states, “Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate,” only on the web.
Note that Wolf’s allusion to Richard Thomson’s drinking is one of 28 deceptive stratagems used by
evolutionists against Biblical creationists that Malcolm Bowden lists in Appendix 4 of his book Science
vs Evolution. Bowden identifies the stratagem that Wolf is using with respect to Richard Thomson’s
drinking as Guilt (or Denigration) by Association (no. 25 in Bowden’s list). The stratagem is used to
associate the person or object of criticism (in this case the 1611 Holy Bible) with an individual, situation
or type of behaviour or belief that is deemed wrong or evil. In this way, the critic aims to ‘prove’ that
whoever or whatever he is criticising (in this case the 1611 Holy Bible) must therefore, by association,
also be wrong or evil.
Grievous Wolf has used the same deceptive stratagem in Question 9 with respect to the King James
translators as a group and in Question 50 with respect to King James 1 st . He will use another, similar
deceptive stratagem with respect to denigrating the 1611 Holy Bible in Questions 61, 62, which consists
of appealing to individuals whose character Wolf perceives as the antithesis of that of King James 1 st ,
Richard Thomson and the King James translators as a group.
52. Is it possible that the rendition “gay clothing,” in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression
to the modern-English KJV reader?
If it did, that is the reader’s problem, not the problem of the 1611 Holy Bible. Grievous Wolf evidently
can’t tell the difference. He also forgot to read James 2:2 that defines “gay clothing” in James 2:3.
“For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in
also a poor man in vile raiment;”
“Gay clothing” is “goodly apparel” i.e. expensive clothing worn by a rich man who can afford “a gold
ring.” Wolf is being wilfully ignorant again, 1 Corinthians 14:38. See Questions 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16,
19, 21, 24, 25, 38, 46.
53. Did dead people “wake up” in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Yes, shortly before they actually dropped dead. The relevant verses are as follows.
“And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the
Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold,
they were all dead corpses” 2 Kings 19:35.