[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

One other point needs to be highlighted. The aggressive, belligerent attack stance of Doug Kutilek in his paper. This was rebutted with grace and pizazz by Bruce Lackey and belongs here, after the many Kutilek misrepresentations and scholarship difficulties have been highlighted.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm
Why Psalm 12:6,7 Is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture - Doug Kutilek

Conclusion

Based on clear evidence from grammar and context and confirmed by the best Bible expositors, it can only be concluded that Psalm 12:6, 7 has nothing at all to do with the preservation of God’s Word. It says nothing for or against it. It does not speak to the issue at all. It is, therefore, wholly irrelevant to the discussion and must not be appealed to as a proof text regarding Bible preservation. We can understand how some through ignorance have misapplied this text, but with the above evidence in hand, to continue to apply these verses to any doctrine of Bible preservation is to handle the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God. Let the Scriptures speak, and let us follow them wherever they lead us.

Bruce Lackey responds. No need to add anything, I will place one highlight.

http://web.archive.org/web/200802121...ervationis.htm
Fundamentalists Following Textual Critics In Denying/Questioning Biblical Preservation

4. In the last paragraph, he [Kutilek] says that those who apply these verses ‘to any doctrine of Bible preservation’ are guilty of handling ‘the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God.’ But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John Wesley, Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the preservation interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful and dishonest.

Now granted, Kutilek tried to cover his attack-tracks some by claiming that he had conclusively proven his position and acting as if he was only chastising unnamed future writers (rather a tawdry writing style, trying to cut off rebuttal from those who know the Hebrew and the heart of the Psalm with more skill and understanding than Doug Kutilek has demonstrated).

Yet of course many of the commentators supporting words knew all about the other commentators, the Hebraics and the grammatical issues -- so Kutilek is accusing them as well. Bruce Lackey is right as Kutilek really adds nothing new other than a distorted historical summary. (Along with what I will fondly call - Kutilek's Theorem of One Object - which actually works against his position.) In fact, we may summarize the Kutilek position in one or two paragraphs, easier now that the fluff is gone.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
From this perspective of arrogance it is no surprise that Doug Kutilek thinks very highly of his performance, and then quotes himself (!) as the main authority in writing against others.

Wilkinson ... misapplies Psalm 12:6-7, incorrectly presuming the verses are a promise of Divine preservation of the Scriptures, when in fact they are a promise of Divine protection for persecuted saints of v. 5. (I established this latter interpretation as certainly correct ...) Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors - Doug Kutilek [Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. I, No. 3; Fall, 1990]

Not surprisingly, the Doug Kutilek article that had that quote was itself rife with more errors and misrepresentations (as is his Johannine Comma article, reviewing the Michael Maynard book, which is especially needing of review of the review).