Want Some Answers ???

King James Error

Hi anonymous,

You wrote,

>>You Answer Me This....<<

But sir, 'Most of your emails are not worth answering. I have better things to do than focus on your ranting.' How do you like that for openers? Yet that's how you started. Is this the past time of KJ radicals? Not something most Christians do. You are not good at defending KJ belief but personal abuse you excel in. But I'll answer your letter where defend your dogma.

>>Cannot God do anything? Do I have a small God? Your god is the god of textual error<<

God’s Word is authoritative because it’s the voice of God, it’s understandable because it’s in human language. Errors in translations [whether KJV or RV etc] result from human translators, printers etc. And human languages are not perfect either – some words change meaning, others not used any more. Scribes also made mistakes when copying manuscripts [MSS]. So no translation is perfect in every sense of the word.

The human element in translations is never honestly considered by KJ radicals regarding the KJV, yet they exaggerate it regarding all other versions. Should this human element cause us to surrender the Bible? On the contrary, it should create a zest to know much as possible concerning the Bibles origin, history and preservation. I have found this true, why haven’t you?

>>Your god could not keep his promise of preservation.<<

But God has 'preserved' His Word, we differ as to the form of His Word. The manner in which God has preserved His Word is shown by the vast array of MS evidence. Consider of the frail state of the original MSS on parchment and in the form of scrolls. No scroll was large enough to contain more than one book and the OT was not bound together.

In the papyrus scroll era the NT also could never circulate as a whole. Yet God wonderfully preserved His Word. For example, the Codex Ephraem [discovered after 1611 in Paris] is called a 'palimpsest' because it came from the time when the Scriptures were held in little esteem. And writing materials were so valuable that someone rubbed the words of Scripture until they became barely legible and then wrote over them some theological treatise or something of no value. That MS was found and carefully restored. We have found that it dates from the 5th century.

The Alexandrian Codex also dates from the early 5th century and that was preserved for centuries in the very centre of the wicked Turkish dominion. Yet God in His wisdom and power, as Ruler over men and nations in His providence fulfilled His purposes, however rebellious men may be. The Church of Rome also was used by God to preserve another of these ancient witnesses to the text of the NT. The Codex Vaticanus was also preserved through the centuries when the Word of God was considered unimportant. The Vatican refused permission to any scholar to do more than look at it under supervision and only for a belief space of time. When God's time was ripe, it was photographed and studied further.

Another proof of God's marvelous preservation is the failure of the NT Apocrypha. This was the result of a flood of spurious writings, yet those books were rejected by the whole Christian Church. And Text Criticism is another proof. The KJV has readings found in no Greek MS at all, but are traced to the Vulgate. The text-type on which the KJV is based has no two MSS that agree perfectly, so God has used Textual Criticism to guard His Word. And the result is that men have less excuse today than ever before in history when rejecting the Bible. Instead of modernism destroying the Bible by unbelieving claims, it has caused men to fervently study and research MSS and new discoveries and thus verify the faithfulness of God in giving us and preserving for us an infallible Word of God. So God has preserved the Bible by its enemies and friends, by circumstances and calamities as no other writing has ever been preserved. You wrote,

>>You give me 'so called' complaints of the KJV bible. My Bible school taught us that in the 1600's the alphabet was completely different than we have today. Letters looked different to us now, but you call them 'textual errors.'<<

The school didn't teach you much. Read my last letter again. My question was, which KJV do I read? All those I mentioned had differences. You did not answer my question. What happens when my KJV disagrees with your KJV? Which one is right? It’s a simple question you won't answer.

As far as the 1611 alphabet goes, that proves revision is necessary. The 1611 was a revised version and proof of the need and value of Bible revision. Revision does not seek to change the message but make it clear. The Great Bible (1539), and Matthew's Bible (1537), and Bishop's Bible (1568) were all revisions. And Tyndale after he produced his version (1525) he also revised it (1534). But the 1611 alphabet is nothing compared to the huge number of spelling mistakes that were in the KJV. Not to mention the textual errors that were corrected in the many KJV editions. Yet KJ radicals claim -

“If you change ANYTHING you are a Bible Corrector”
“How can the Word of God contain even ONE error?”
"If the KJB is the true Word of God, then it cannot contain any error...”
"Because Prov.30:5 states “EVERY word of God is PURE:... An inaccurate word is not a pure word".

After reading these and other claims by radicals, I would be dishonest to ignore the obvious. You wrote,

>>The only error I know of is a man who presumes to be 'a god' of all textual criticism.<<

Erasmus introduced material from the Vulgate into the KJV and words found in no Greek MS at all. Note Acts.9.6 KJV "And he trembling and astonished said, lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" And he trembling and astonished said, lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" These words are not found in any Greek MS. Erasmus introduced them from the Vulgate. And they are an obvious assimilation to the parallel account in Ac.22.10. Also, “Easter” (Act 12:4). Was the text was correctly altered to include the word? Yet it wasn’t used or known by Luke, its foreign to the NT MSS. The KJ translators introduced “Esotre” from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books. Are they right and Luke wrong? I would rather know what the original writers wrote or said. You wrote,

>>My bible tells me, 'He that heareth my words and believeth on him that sent me.' You fail to meet the requirements of 'His words,' since you doubt the 'sure word' of God.<<

Strange. I don’t see any mention of the KJV in this verse. Watch out, cults often do what you do here. They reinterpret verses and words with meanings the original writers never said. When Jesus said, “heareth my words” He wasn’t referring to a English KJV [but not a NIV]. Sorry to disappoint you. If you stop thinking the KJV refers to the KJV in the KJV, you would do yourself a service. Radicals have a whole new vocabulary normal Christian’s don’t have.

>>Let me ask you something, 'Are all they who say they are a Christian, a Christian?' If you doubt the validity of the word of God, how can you be sure of your OWN salvation. Since your god, cannot keep his promise of preservation, how then can your 'god' keep his promise for your salvation?<<

Certainly not all who claim to be Christian are. And I don’t “doubt the validity of the word of God”. But there you go again. Reinterpreting verses and words with meanings the original writers and speakers never intended. For you “word of God” means KJV. And because I reject your claims regarding the KJV, you suggest I can’t “be sure of [my] salvation”. It is THIS that makes the radicals like a cult.

You wrongly think salvation is intrinsically linked to a language and Bible version. Most students of Scripture realise the NT does not teach salvation rests on languages or translations, but Christ's death and resurrection (Jn.3:16-17 Rom.10:9). Even the KJV itself will not support your radical claims. There will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV or even spoke English.

“After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands” Rev.7:9 ( See also Rev.5.9).

This questions your whole argument. This heavenly vision describes millions of worshippers from all nations and languages who simply accepted the Gospel. Yes, all nations shall worship before Him (Ps.22:27,28 72:11,17 96:1,3,10). Regarding salvation Paul never mentions dialects or languages. Read the great salvation chapters of Romans and Galatians three and four. People become Christian’s by receiving Christ as Saviour and the Holy Spirit enters their heart (Gal.3.1-3 Rom.8:9). No Apostle, Early Church Father or Reformer suggest converts must learn another language. In fact, at the beginning of the Church, the Gospel was proclaimed in various languages and dialects.

Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God”. Acts 2:7b-11 (See also Acts 10:34-35, 17:26-30 22:2. Mk.16:15 1 Pe.1:1-2)

If God only preserved the Bible in the KJV, then it’s language is vital. And none can be sure about salvation (or any doctrine) unless they learn that language to read “
His words”. THIS ADDS WORKS TO THE GOSPEL OF GRACE. It demands the convert not only repent and believe the Gospel, but to know God’s Word, they must learn Elizabethan English. This is foreign to the Gospel "once delivered unto the saints" (Eph.2:8-9). To require this of converts is wrong and makes the KJ radicals like a cult. It implies God is racist and discriminatory, yet His promise to Abraham was all nations would be blessed through faith (Gal.3:8).

It’s estimated there's 90 million functionally illiterate people in the USA alone. They depend on hearing to learn about Christ. There's millions worldwide who are illiterate in English. And millions more illiterate in their own tongue, with no possibility to learn English. Yet, God communicates with people who are illiterate or fluent in their language (1 Cor.12:13-26 Gal.3:28). If He only communicates by a KJV then millions have no chance of understanding Him (1 Cor.14:6-9).

>>Do you trust the Alexandrian text, and the corrupted work of men of ill repute like 'Westcott and Horte?'<<

The 'Alexandrian text' is found in quotations by ante-Nicene fathers and traced back to the 2nd century and early versions, so has excellent credentials. The best Western and 'Alexandrian texts' have been discoveries of the last two centuries. Today textual critics don't lean too heavily on one text-type, but the best MSS available. And they have so much MS evidence it’s difficult to decide which text-type is superior. Why should we be restricted to one text-type when God has provided such wealth? No doctrine is lost or in doubt by using other text-types. No doctrine hinges on disputed readings, but the vast majority of the actual words in the NT are beyond doubt. And there’s nothing in Scripture indicating a rejection of the Byzantine text results in ignorance of God’s will. The research over the last 200 years has not given us a radically different Bible. Not one article of the Christian creed is overthrown by newly accepted readings.

>>You have repeatedly written that we 'KJV' believers say that those in foreign countries, cannot be saved, since they do not have the KJV.<<

No. You have not quoted me correctly. It’s what the KJV radicals imply over and over. They are the ones linking salvation to the KJV [Just like you do in your letter]. What I am saying repeatedly is that they have departed from Scripture. You wrote,

>>Yet, I'm reading the theatrical performances of a man who claims to be the savior of textual criticism.<<

No, I never claimed that. It’s the radicals making all the “claims” and pretending to be the saviour of Scripture. And with all the “theatrical performances” of cursing fellow Christian’s who differ.

>>You call us guilty, like the Catholics, of denying their congregation for centuries the word of God.<<

Yes. History repeats itself. The RCC believed the Latin Vulgate was inspired and without error. And translating it into the common tongue of the people was corrupting Scripture. So they withheld Scripture from people and translators were martyred and persecuted as 'heretics' (what you call me). And for years after that, they would never translate from any other text than the Vulgate. For years “sellers of the Word” were cursed from the alters of churches and excommunicated. Bonfires of Bibles blazed, men were flung into dungeons for selling it. All was done in denial, and insisting ‘Every Word of God is pure’ and must not corrupted by translating. They used very similar words as KJ radicals today.

Same thing happened regarding the Vulgate. Jerome was also regarded as a ‘enemy of the faith’, because he revised the old Latin version. The new version was badly received because the older version was held in respect. Jerome just wanted to relieve the text of errors that crept in. Over time the worth of his labours were recognized. Then men went to the other extreme and made that version the standard text of the NT from the original tongues [even though it was only a Latin translation from the original tongues]. History repeats itself.

>>Yet, your so called, 'intelligence' is the deciding factor of what is the word of GOD.<<

If more Christian’s used their intelligence when interpreting God's Word they wouldn’t make so many blunders when preaching it. I allow the 'intelligence' of the Holy Spirit to interpret it, He can’t be wrong. But you commit your trust to the human 'intelligence' of translators who can be wrong. You wrote,

>>I am sure the next quip will be that King James was a Homosexual.<<

No, I’m not the one making silly claims about which I know nothing about.

>>The Bible say, "Answer not a fool!"<<

Does this mean you disobeyed the Bible? Or that you don’t think I’m a “fool”? Jesus said, "I say unto you, - whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” [Mt 5:22KJV]. Do you follow Jesus? I would hope with Paul – “Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me” [2 Cor.11:16]. I’m happy to be received as a fool, if you listen to my concerns or explain my error. After so many emails I’m still waiting for someone to answer my concerns regarding the KJ sideshow. Keep trying I await your answers. If you regard me as “a fool” you obviously have a high opinion of yourself. What gives you such pride?


Hi there,

At last, time to answer your email. Your wrote,

>>Expert. Someone once said an expert is a drip under pressure. You started the 'radical' lingo. Not I. You started the KJV bashing, not I. You started bashing that which is good. Not I.<<

What nonsense. Your email address is on the KGB website. If you have people object to the erroneous doctrine the KJ radicals teach ask them to remove your address. You have got to learn to communicate without restoring to personal ridicule.

>>2 Tim 3:5-9 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.""For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts," "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.""Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." "But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was."<<

When you quote Scripture try to make it relevant to a topic.

>>I can't believe you never heard of Norris. You implied you were a man of learning. So, now I know. You're not a Baptist at all. Sorry Doc. It's your loss.<<

No I haven’t heard of Norris, but I can’t help but hear of the foul rotten rubbish published by the caustic radicals. Is it possible for them ever to say something nice about people?

>>As for Christian Love, you haven't been quite the example yourself.You started the finger pointing. Not I. To you, everyone else is the sinner. I guess you're above all of that.<<

What are you doing on the radical KJV webpage? They are all 'finger' pointers'. Why you JUSTIFY the slandering and targeting other Christians is beyond me. You ought to be ashamed.

>>You tell me you lift up the bible in one statement in the next tell me that their is errors in all manuscripts. That is unstable thinking<<

And what 'stable' answer have you given to any of my concerns? What "statement" reveals my 'error'? It's hard for you to focus? Obviously you are bitter. I hope you get over this stage in life and go on and do something really constructive.

Mark Purchase