Question: Did
Don Wilkins really lose his voice on a taping of the John Ankerberg
Show? Was this a "sign from God" confirming the King James
Version?
Answer: The question keeps coming up - so here is our
response once again. We have also placed a link here to the RAW
UNEDITED tape of the incident in question so you can view it for
yourself and determine who is telling the truth.
|
CLICK
GO TO WATCH - REQUIRES WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER |
|
30 Minute Tape From King James Only
Debate:
RE: "Executive Editor Does Not Lose His Voice" |
|
56 K Dial Up Modem |
 |
The View From Marrs:
Did Dr. Don Wilkins Really Lose
His Voice on a Taping of The John Ankerberg Show on the New
Translations?
Many people have written us at The John Ankerberg Show asking if the
claims of Texe Marrs concerning a recent television taping were true.
Now it is necessary to set the record straight.
Unfortunately, a characteristic feature of much KJV Onlyism is that
its zealous proponents are often unfair and biased in their use of
facts. Yet they claim to be concerned about the truth.
Dr. Art Farstad, general editor of the New King James Version (NKJV),
is hardly alone when he observed on the program, "I’ve been accused of a
number of heinous crimes that I’ve never done."
God takes truth very seriously because He is a God of truth. He warns
in Scripture against false witnesses and those who would lie against the
truth: "A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness
tells lies" (Proverbs 12:17). The Scripture also tells us that we are to
avoid those who cause dissension: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out
for those who cause divisions…. Keep away from them. For such people are
not serving our Lord Christ,…" (Romans 16:17-18).
In Flashpoint, the monthly newsletter of Texe Marrs ministry
for October 1995, p. 3, we find an article titled, "SHOCKER!—BIBLE
SCHOLAR LOSES VOICE ON THE JOHN ANKERBERG TV SHOW."
This article typifies the distortion that characterizes the arguments
and approach of the KJVO camp toward those whom it considers its
opponents. Texe Marrs wrote that Dr. Don Wilkins had lost his voice
during the taping of the Ankerberg program on the issue of new Bible
translations. He begins the article by saying, "You can call it pure
justice, a sign from God, or whatever you want, but eyebrows were sure
raised recently during the tapings for Christian TV’s The John
Ankerberg Show."
Then he begins a series of distortions. First, he alleges that John
Ankerberg attempted to "stack the deck" by having "five new
version scholars but only three King James advocates." But there
was no attempt to "stack the deck." Six KJVO advocates were invited;
only three chose to appear. Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman and D. A.
Waite, all leaders in the KJVO camp, declined our invitation.
Furthermore, how is having three KJVO advocates but only one
for each of the other positions "stacking the deck" against KJVO?
Second, Marrs calls Ankerberg "a bitter opponent of the King James
Bible," but this is also false. If it were true, why would John offer
the King James version as a premium on his TV shows? Why would he also
offer quality study aids for the KJV?
Third, Marrs claims on one of the shows that Don Wilkins lost his
voice, presumably as a punishment from God:
[It] happened when Ankerberg asked Dr. Don Wilkins, head of the New
King James Version translation committee a key question. "Is it true,"
asked Ankerberg, "as Gail Riplinger reported in her best-selling book,
New Age Bible Versions, that a number of the scholars that
worked on the new translation committees lost their voice as
punishment by God?"
As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth
to answer—and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear
his throat, but he couldn’t respond. Ankerberg and the other new
version scholars were visibly startled. Finally an embarrassed and
frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost
inaudible manner, "I...I’ve...lost...my voice!"
A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up,
whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James Only advocate, politely
protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here,"
Chambers insisted. But Ankerberg was hearing none of it. After a brief
delay, the TV cameras began to roll again, after the amazing
segment of Dr. Wilkin’s losing his voice had conveniently been
excised!
This reporting is one long misrepresentation. First, Dr. Don Wilkins
was on the translation committee of the New American Standard Bible,
not the New King James Version, as Marrs stated.
Second, in previous shows Ankerberg had commented about Riplinger’s
claim that new translations editors had lost their voices. He wanted an
answer on this to quell the rumor and set the record straight since,
obviously, none of the people present had lost their voices and neither
did they know of this occurring to anyone else. But on the segment
reported by Marrs, this was not Ankerberg’s question. Ankerberg’s
question was to ask Wilkins about the credibility of Riplinger’s book.
So Marrs has distorted the context as well.
Third, the event in question was not at all like Marrs reported it. I
(John Weldon) personally reviewed this segment of the tape where Wilkins
supposedly lost his voice. He didn’t lose his voice at all; he merely
developed a "frog" in his throat, which took about five seconds to cough
out. This happens to people all the time and is hardly a sign of God’s
judgment, nor would it be unexpected with someone who had just flown in
from Athens, Greece, and was tired. In response, Wilkins simply cleared
his throat and said, a bit embarrassed, but half in jest, "I’m
losing my voice." Everyone laughed and he took a drink of water and then
proceeded to answer Ankerberg’s question concerning the unreliability of
Riplinger’s book. He went on immediately to state that the Lockman
Foundation had spent six weeks in investigation of Riplinger’s book and
that "what I personally found is that virtually everything she says is
wrong, or a misquotation or a deliberate deception of people…."
So Wilkins did not lose his voice, Ankerberg and the new version
scholars were not "visibly startled," or "shocked," Wilkins was not
"embarrassed and frightened," etc.
If this really had been a punishment of God, as was the biblical case
of Zechariah, Wilkins would not have been able to continue
speaking at all. In the case of Zechariah, the angel pronounced a
judgment that he would be unable to speak for a full nine months because
he had not believed the angel’s words concerning the miraculous birth of
John the Baptist: "And now you will be silent and not able to speak
until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which
will come true at their proper time" (Luke 1:20). Zechariah was indeed
mute for an entire nine months (Luke 1:24, 57, 64). So, why did God
allow Dr. Wilkins to continue speaking and mention that the Lockman
Foundation had investigated Riplinger’s book and found it was completely
false as to its claims? As James White, a participant in the debate,
pointed out in, "The View from Marrs,"
Dr. Wilkins had one single problem; he immediately recovered and
went on to demonstrate errors in KJV Only viewpoints. Dr. Wallace had
flown in just an hour before the program began, yet he had no
problems. I had no problems, Dr. Barker had no problems, and Dr.
Farstad had no problems, either. Can’t we use the term "desperation"
to describe the KJV Only attempt to read into this incident some
divine judgment? Why didn’t God keep us all from discussing
Riplinger’s errors? Why did Dr. Wilkins’ problem last for just a few
seconds? And why did God allow us to repeatedly refute the KJV Only
arguments through all eight programs?1
The John Ankerberg Show does its very best to produce quality
Christian apologetics that attempt to defend the truth of the Christian
faith and offer a biblical and reasoned evaluation of current issues.
Unfortunately, the church of past and present has usually been less than
excited about supporting apologetic ministries, cult evangelism, etc.
Those like Dr. Ankerberg who suffer the personal and ministerial
consequences of seeking to defend the truth should be commended rather
than being unfairly criticized.
