|
>>
Questions from those who Oppose the King James Bible
After you review these, please also
review questions that you should ask those who take
opposing views of the King James Version!
Click Here to Continue to the Questions.
Question:
Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in
order to call it "the word of God"?
Answer:
No. Did you like that answer ?
I
answered 'No' but that's not my real answer. Why? Because
obviously, people today tend to call anything the "Word of
God" regardless of it's origin and regardless of whether
it even remotely accurate. You can have Dr. Seuss and all
his writings if you wish, and call that the Word of God
but it doesn't make it so. Just because someone labels
something "the Word of God" and calls it a Bible, does
that make it true? According to today's modern Christian,
ANYTHING that resembles a Bible is true.
Ok...so
the REAL ANSWER is YES. WE MUST POSSESS a perfectly
flawless bible.
To
explain further: What would you think if you walked into a
Christian Book Store today and found copies of Anton
LeVey's Satanic Bible for sale? What if those same bibles
replaced the word Satanic with "Holy". Do you believe
there would be people who would buy them? Of course they
would...after all... it SAYS "HOLY". Would THAT be an
accurate representation of the Word of God? Of course not.
Well, in the same light, let me ask you:
What
makes an ACCURATE translation? With which of the following
do you agree?
1. A
translation is accurate because we can look into and
determine the THOUGHTS of the original writers and
therefore can make an extremely accurate bible!
2. A
translation is accurate because it copies Word for Word,
the things contained in the original documents.
3.
Accurate? Who cares about accurate, as long as I can
READ it!
I would
hope that you would have chosen Number 2 above.
If the
answer is that a Translation must be ACCURATE, are there
bibles that are NOT accurate?
Consider the following well-documented facts:
1.
There are versions that were translated by known
occultists.
2.
There are versions translated by those who hate and
despise the sound doctrinal teaching of the bible, such
as those doctrines that teach the deity of Christ, the
Virgin Birth of Christ, the Atonement, etc.
3.
There are versions translated from documents that are
entirely false.
Only
YOU can make the choice to follow and embrace or to
utterly reject these corrupted bibles.
Question:
Why does the King James Only crowd "limit" "the word of
God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation?
Answer:
The question is misguided. Let me ask a few questions of
you in order to understand your viewpoint:
Why is
it that when we have a version that we know is accurate
and reliable, that modern men feel compelled to
"modernize" something in order to fit with his current
thinking? Why is it that they must always tamper with
things Holy, all in the name of "better understanding"?
Does
modern man now believe that MILLIONS of men, women and
children were saved and went to heaven using an Inaccurate
version of the bible? OR, Does modern man believe they all
WENT TO HELL (which by the way is a place denied in modern
versions anyway), because they DIDN'T have an accurate
version of the bible?
Do you
believe that no generation before today's translations was
accurate in their belief of God? Do you believe they
weren't as "educated" as today and therefore, couldn't
possibly have had any stronger faith than we? Judging from
today's society, do you believe we are closer to God than
any past generation? If you believe that, can you explain
ALL the original documents from just a mere couple hundred
years ago when the United States of America was founded
(i.e.. The Federalist Papers, penned by none other than
the author of the Constitution himself?) Can you explain
why every Speech made by George Washington included
multiple references to not only 'God' but to our Lord
Jesus Christ?
Did God
wait until the 1900's in order to give us the "Full Truth"
of the Gospels? Is that what you believe? If that is true,
then there has been 1900 years of error and people
everywhere for those years have been lost.
There
is a very real reason why modern man argues that the KJV
Bible can't be understood. Read Romans 8:7 and 1
Corinthians 2:14 for starters. It can't be understood by
some because they CANNOT understand it. Doublespeak you
say? Sure it is. An unregenerate, unrenewed mind cannot
understand the things of God.
I
believe if God gave us his gospel (and he did), which we
know is accurate and reliable (and it is), then we should
learn to read it, memorize it, and accept its teachings.
Question:
If the King James Version is the accurate Word of God,
then where was "the Word of God" prior to 1611?
Answer:
In the same place it was from the beginning. The Word of
God was written down in his Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts,
that the KJV translators acquired and were able to use for
their solid and accurate work, the King James Version.
Question:
If the King James Version is the 'accurate' Word of God,
then what about the Pilgrims? Didn't they use the GENEVA
Bible?
Answer:
Yes, and most people who use the King James Bible can
understand this. The Geneva Bible was first produced in
1560: 50 years before the King James Version. Guess what
Text they used to translate it and all other English
Bibles of the Day such as Tyndale's (1526-1530),
Cloverdale's (1535), Matthew's (1537), and the 'Great
Bible' (1539)?
Does
anyone have a good guess?
Right.
The Greek Textus Receptus.
Now,
YOU tell me: WHY did the Pilgrims use the Geneva Bible and
not the King James Version? The answer is that the
Pilgrims had left Holland before the KJV was complete. The
KJV was started 1603/1604, but it was not complete until
1611. By then, the Pilgrims were already in
Holland,
and had their Bibles with them, which were the Geneva
Bibles.
Take a
look at the works and sermons of the pastor of the
Pilgrims, John Robinson, and read his sermons. Look at the
dates and the texts he based his sermons on.
Hmmm....I wonder why the text agrees with the King James
Version, even though he didn't have a King James Version
bible to use?
Do you
think it could be that the Geneva Bible and the King James
Version were translated from the SAME GREEK TEXT?
Question:
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV
are "the word of God"?
Answer:
Yes, do you NOT believe that?
If you
do, then you should be using the same Greek and Hebrew
Texts that were used for the KJV and all other Bibles
prior to that time as well (with the exception of the
textual corruptions of the Catholic Church and Eusebius &
Jerome....note....you can read Jerome's OBJECTIONS that
are plainly declared in his writings.
He
objected to the use of anything except the Greek and
Hebrew "Received Texts", however his objections were
overruled and due to an obvious lack of moral fortitude,
he wrote as instructed instead of refusing to perform the
work from corrupted manuscripts.
Question:
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the
KJV can "correct" the English?
Answer:
I don't think your question accurately reflects truth.
That's not to say that you are lying, but I believe what
you are asking is this:
"Do you
believe that the ALEXANDRIAN texts can correct the KJV
English?
Let me
answer both arguments.
There
is no need for the "Hebrew and Greek" to 'correct' the
English King James Version. The KJV is the accurate
representation of the Greek and Hebrew and was translated
word for word (not a "let's guess what they were thinking"
type of translation as in today's modern versions such as
the NIV).
Even
those who advocate Modern Bible Versions agree that the
KJV is an excellent version and highly accurate. They just
(usually) don't believe that the 'language' is up to date
(or at least, that it their excuse).
Let me
speak on that matter for a moment. The argument is always
that the King James Bible is too hard to understand.
Well,
for you that really believe that, there IS a Bible that I
recommend just for you. In fact, this is the ONLY other
one I've ever recommended that steps outside the
traditional language of the King James Bible. Note that it
IS a King James Bible, but, it uses a "you and yours" type
of language instead of the "thees and thous" that many
complain about. This version takes away all the excuses of
the "I can't understand basic English" crowd.
It
is called the
EVIDENCE BIBLE..Check it out!.
Now for
the second part of that (my rephrased question). Do I
believe the Alexandrian texts can correct the King James?
NO, Not
in any form or fashion. Do YOU believe that texts with
some 90+ average BLOTTED OUT words, lines, verses, etc.
(PER BOOK) are accurate? It is ludicrous to believe
that a manuscript with an average of 90 verses per book
blotted out is accurate in any form or fashion.
Question:
Is the KJV "scripture"? Is the KJV "given by inspiration
of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
Answer:
Any accurate translation of the Word of God is
"scripture". Any accurate translation of the Word
of God is – itself – "given by inspiration of God".
Why is
it that Modern Version advocates think that if words are
not specifically Hebrew or Greek, that the truth and the
accuracy of them must automatically depart from those
words when they are translated into another language ?
There is simply no basis for this assertion.
It's as
if Modern Version advocates want to force KJV advocates to
"admit" that the Holy Spirit somehow does not work, and
that God is no longer sovereign if He is not operating in
today's corrupted English.
Modern
Versions often use arguments to limit the power of God.
KJV advocates know that the Lord operates in English and
that He does in His own sovereignty in other languages as
well. KJV advocates praise God for this.
But
that does not take away from the fact that Modern Versions
are strong departures from the Greek and the Hebrew and
make no pretense to even be reconciled to the historic
Bible Manuscripts used by the Christian Church for 2000
years.
The
issue is Not that KJV advocates do not believe that God
cannot use Hebrew or Ancient (Koine) Greek, or any other
language for that matter (after all, our Lord spoke
Aramaic), but rather the issue is that Modern Version
translators have no intention of using solid Biblical
Ancient Manuscripts, and they have been proven to have
every intention of departing from them.
Question:
WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" ?
Answer:
The Short answer is when the Translators were doing the
work of translation. For the Long answer, read the studies
on
bible versions
on this site. Any Bible that: accurately represents and
speaks the Word of God, and conveys the Words of God in
the most accurate way possible, accomplished by Linguists
who are saved and have the Holy Spirit inside of them, and
that reconciles with the Greek Textus Receptus and the
King James Version...is THE Word of God. The language of
the translation matters little.
On the
other hand, any Bible that refuses to accept the words as
they are written (translating word for word) and instead
tries to guess what someone was 'really' thinking 2000
years ago is based entirely upon supposition. That version
is NOT inspired, except in the imaginations of man. (2
Corinthians 10:5)
Question:
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly
preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century
English translation?
Answer:
This is the kind of 'politically correct' nonsense
questions that shows both a lack of knowledge concerning
the bible and shows the contempt with which many today
view the Word of God.
Do you
seriously believe that those who hold the KJV in high
regard today are saying that no versions of the Bible
existed before the KJV ? That is ludicrous to believe
that.
These
type of questions are designed, as with all the
politically correct garbage today, not to get an answer to
an honest question but to mislead others concerning what
KJV advocates are actually saying.
The
Bible was preserved long before the King James, and the
King James faithfully follows in that tradition, which is
historically grounded in Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts that
date back to the time of the Early Church.
May I
ask you, then a question? Do you actually believe that man
can second guess someone who lived 2000 years ago? Do you
believe you can read a 2000 year old letter and guess
exactly what the man was thinking at the time? Do you
believe that changes in our culture actually CHANGE the
Word of God? This is the way of the politically correct
thinkers of our day.
Let me
submit to you that TRUTH does not change despite the
changes of culture. TRUTH remains constant, whether we
like it or not. For example, the color white is not
'white' because someone believes it to be that way. It is
white because it is a fact and it is TRUE.
Perhaps you could answer some of MY questions found at
this link!
Question:
Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by not
having ALL the facts?
Answer:
KJV opponents like to say that the KJV translators relied
on too few manuscripts. Let me submit an alternate view:
It would not matter if all they had was ONE manuscript, if
the manuscripts that they used were and are the accurate
ones. The end result would be exactly what we have now: an
accurate translation.
It is
noteworthy to mention that "modern scholars", when
confronted face to face, won’t entirely ignore the
manuscript record, and are quick to point out that 98% of
the Bible manuscripts Agree with the Greek Textus Receptus
and that they DISAGREE with the Greek Texts used by
Westcott & Hort (The Alexandrian Texts and others).
Why
then, do men cling to the 2% of invalid texts? I submit to
you that it is because the 2% appeals more to their FLESH
than does the 98%.
Question:
Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take
place without "the word of God"?
Answer:
NO ! In fact, it took place because the Catholic Church
was insisting on Not giving people the Word of God, as
much as possible. Back then, the Roman Catholic Church
made it a crime punishable by death, to own a copy of the
Bible (or the writings of Luther or Calvin) that was not
translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. This is a
period of time we call the DARK AGES
Knowing
and realizing that the Roman Catholic Church had corrupted
the Bible – and then used this to justify un-Biblical
doctrines and rituals, the Protestant Reformers protested
and began learning as much Greek and Hebrew possible, and
they began also to teach as many common people how to read
(something that the Roman Catholic Church did not want the
people to know).
The
Protestant Reformers faced many Textual Critics in their
own day. Most of those textual critics were following the
same line: trying to get common people to be misled into
agreement with the top leaders and Cardinals of the Roman
Catholic Church and their corrupted Bibles.
The
attacks and statements were the same as those of today:
You
can’t speak because you’re not authorized (or as well
qualified)
You
don’t know as much as we do (after all YOU'VE never been
to cemetary ... oh I mean seminary ... school)
You
don’t have any credentials we have approved
You
don’t have our permission to think for yourself (well,
not if it disagrees with our position)
You
can't find God without a modern bible because your OLD
one is inaccurate and too hard to understand.
The
reformers were mostly ignored before, and they will be
ignored in today's society as well – for the very same
reasons.
Most
Textual Critics supporting modern versions today are Bible
attackers who are trying to get people to NOT rely on the
Bible, as being the reliable Word of God.
During the Reformation, Luther began his own translation
of the Bible into German, and Calvin began translation
projects of the Bible into English, French and Italian
(and worked with Spanish translators also). The versions
that were commissioned by Calvin (through his co-worker
Beza) ARE the GENEVA Bible. The Geneva Bible is based on
the Textus Receptus. The translation of Luther is also
based on the Textus Receptus and agrees with it, while
also disagreeing with Modern Versions. Was Luther wrong?
If he was, friend, you need to convert to Catholicism
immediately!
Question:
So you believe that we need Reformers today? Do you think
with nearly 2000 years of Christianity behind us that the
Church of Today is not accurate in their beliefs and their
worship?
Answer:
This is another 2 part question.
Part One:
Do I
believe we need ref ormers
today? Absolutely.
Do I
believe we need preachers today to stand up against the
"name it and claim it gospels" Yes I do.
Do I
believe we need preachers today to preach about hell?
Yes I do.
Do I
believe we need preachers today to spell out sin and
tell people how to get rid of it? Yes I do.
Do I
believe the church is promoting a gospel of wealth and
health rather than of salvation? Yes I do.
Who
among you will be a reformer? Only God can answer
that.
Do we
need reformers? Yes.
Now for the Second Part to the question above:
Do I
believe the
majority of the "Church
of
Today"
is not accurate in their beliefs and worship? Yes,
that is exactly what I believe for the most part. Let me
explain.
I
believe men have rejected the truth of God's word in
exchange for a lifestyle of pleasure. I believe that
Sound Doctrine is no longer taught in the Church of
today. I believe men have cast aside the faith once
delivered to the Saints and have instead adopted a gospel
of "acceptance, tolerance and embracement" of any
lifestyle that decides to call itself Christian. Let me
give you an example that will make many of you very
angry. If It does, please don't ask me to apologize. I
will not. Why? Because truth is not "dependent upon how
you look at it". Truth is truth.
Here is
an example of how many in the church today have been
corrupted into accepting LASCIVIOUSNESS:
I don't
know of ANY women who would go to the store, buy a simple
bra and pair of panties then put them on and wear them to
the beach (I'm quite sure there are those who are vile and
obscene enough to do so, however, I don't know of them
personally) There aren't many men would would buy a pair
of briefs or boxers, put them on and wear them to the
beach.
BUT....
there are MANY today who will take that same underwear,
paint it yellow, or red or blue and then call it a bathing
suit. They will THEN wear THAT to the beach.
Interesting. I asked a law enforcement friend of mine
what would happen if a woman showed up at the city pool in
her underwear. He, without hesitation, stated that he
would be forced to arrest her for indecency. I then
asked him what was the difference between underwear and a
bathing suit. He stated that he had never thought about
it that way.
Do we
need reformers? Yes, Absolutely. We need Reformers.
Will
they be popular? No, according to today's thinking, they
will be old-fashioned, outdated, politically incorrect and
"evil".
Question:
IF... the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to
the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking
people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
Answer:
Yes, it was the Geneva Bible, the Textus Receptus, and the
other versions that agreed with the Greek and Hebrew
documents of the time.
Question:
Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at
Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus
Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the
post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
Answer:
Your question is one that has a very obvious underlying
thought or motive. Is this a printer's mistake? POSSIBLY.
Some say yes, others say no.
I
believe what you are really asking is this: "If there is a
printing mistake, doesn't that invalidate the argument for
the King James Bible being right?
NO, it
doesn't invalidate the argument.
To talk
about the mistakes of a printer (if that is what this
really is) is one thing.
To talk about men, who were not saved, who were
occultists, or who were enemies of the Cross of
Christ...actually being allowed to translate the Scripture
from known corrupted manuscript (as in the New
International (per)Version or others...on purpose is
something very different.
There
is no equivalence between the two, so let’s not be trying
to suggest that there is.
Look
for More Questions and Answers Coming Soon!
Don't forget to
review questions that you should ask those who take
opposing views of the King James Version!
Click Here to Continue to the Questions.
Α Ω
|
