Want Some Answers ???

Hi Chad,

Thanks for writing. Exchanging views and information is a good way to learn. And what better way for me to learn than from those who are part of the KJ group? I would like to go through your email reflecting on the points you raise.  Of course, reply and correct me. I don't 'know it all' and kind people like you have helped me so much in the past, although some have misled me. Your first point [quote] -

>>You said many things about King James Only people that my King James Only church does not believe. I could go on and try to answer each thing that you said in error, but that is okay, we won't go that far.<<

If you don't tell me the "many things" you people "do not believe" I won't know my error. Or perhaps you have a different view of the KJV than the radicals. If so, ask them to remove your email address off their website. Because it appears that everyone listed there are mad as the cookies that run the site. You wrote,

>>I will however state that I am on a constant search for the most accurate translation, and the NKJV falls way short<<.

No translation can be totally "accurate" in very sense of the word. Languages change and words are used differently worldwide. You wrote,

>>In between the 1611 version and the 1762 revision, there are somewhere between 300 and 5,000 changes in the text, yet the "update" to the NKJV contains 44,000 changes. That in itself is not a problem for me.<<

A KJ radical wrote me saying there are, "24,000 differences between the 1611 edition and today's." That's a lot of 'changes' in the KJV don't you agree? So the KJV we have today is not word for word as the 1611 original. It’s not the "unaltered word for word 1611" as the radicals claim!

Yet in contradiction they also say regarding other versions, "If you change ANYTHING you are a bible corrector!" It appears to me the "Bible Correctors" have been busy with the KJV. Goodspeed estimated today's edition differs from the 1611 in at least 75,000 details. Remarkable! Because the radicals emphasise God has PRESERVED His words according to Matt.24:35, Luke 21:33, Ps. 12:7. Although the KJV has had so many changes and corrections its not really a problem for me. I don't throw it away and curse those who use it. You wrote,

>>However, the Greek text from whihc the changes were made is faulty of itself.  Perhaps you have not studied the textual criticism in light of the Greek.  Do you know the difference between the Received Text and the Majority Text?<<

I understand the 'faulty' text-type of the NKJV is the same text-type as the KJV. The KJV is based on the RT, which is a late corrupt form of the Byzantine text-type.  Erasmus published it in 1516 with a handful of Greek MSS. Because he used late MSS from the middle Ages there were copy errors and some important passages were affected. Translators today have MSS less than a century from the original autographs. These and other discoveries have clarified word meanings.

In 1886 a Greek scholar 'J.H.Thayer' listed 767 distinctively NT words with no parallels in any known language Greek literature. The list in 1986 was under 50 and today is still shrinking. By the nineteenth century, as more MSS of greater age came to light, it became apparent that the RT must be set aside and attempts to reconstruct and the original text. So modern translations are no longer based on the TR. With most of the TR there's no debate, but corruptions are easy to find particularly with the vast array of information available today.  Eg, Erasmus for the book of Revelation had but one MS and it was lacking the final leaf so he translated the Vulgate into Greek and published that. So there are words in the KJV that are in no MSS whatever. He introduced other material from the Vulgate into the KJV and was criticized for 'attacking the Vulgate'. You wrote,

>>Now, I have never said that the KJV is the only "true" Bible and neither does any KJV only person I know. Obviously, Spanish- speakers have a spanish Bible and so forth.<<

A few comments from KJ radicals, they say -

"You are a King James Bible Believer or you are an enemy of the Word of God"
"Anyone who uses any OTHER bible has a corrupt bible".
"ALL other translations are Satanic".

These quotes are not uncommon. The radicals insist the KJV alone should be read and all others are not to be trusted. Perhaps you are not radical as some, or have not realised their crazy claims. You wrote,

>>However,I do believe that it is the best English translation and that quality can never be repeated due to the transition of Greek scholarship in the modern era.  Have you studied the quality of scholarship in the last four hundred years? I am sure that you will see the downward trend.<<

The quality of scholarship in the last 400 years has not been a 'downward trend'.  The KJV translators, although remarkable scholars, wrongly believed the NT was originally written in the Attic Greek of the Classics. The relevant MSS had not yet been discovered. We now know it was "Koine" or 'Common Greek' of everyday life. This 'modern' discovery makes a huge difference when translating. It also teaches us from the very beginning God intended His Word to be clearly understood by the common man.  The difference between Attic and Koine is significant for the interpretation of the NT.  Scholars give numerous examples of how 'inaccurate' the Attic Greek is when reading the NT compared to the Koine Greek. Most speakers of the Koine were non-Greeks, for many of them Greek was a second language. So Koine did not have the precision and elegance of the classical Attic tongue.

Early MSS generally have few errors compared to those of the late middle Ages because less copying between MS and the autograph means better copies.  Although some early MSS were carelessly copied so the early date does not mean greater accuracy. Newer versions have had far more Biblical scholars, hours of research and effort put into them.  You wrote,

>>The KJV, by the way is NOT Old English.That statement alone demonstrates to me you a limited view of the English language.  Of the three distinct periods of English speech, the KJV would fall into later Middle English. Remember William Shakesphere was the father of Modern English, and he was quite alive at the time of the translation of the KJV.  (Some have even supposed he assisted.)  In any case, depending on whihc linguist you talk to, some would say the KJV is Middle English, some would say modern, but none I know of would call it "old."  No matter.<<

I have photocopies from the KJV edition published in 1627. I count 139 changes compared with today’s KJV. You couldn’t read them without a careful study because of the spelling and old letters. Do you call that "Middle English"? There have been thousands of changes to both the KJV and English language since. Yet the KJV today still has a form of English, which requires a study. I can see these changes myself by comparing the 1627 with today's KJV. You wrote,

>>My youth at the church I pastor each have a KJV student Bible, and they love it. It keeps us on our toes and teaches us how to do word studies.  I myself am not a highly educated person, and neither are my youth, but I love the poetic style and structure of the KJV.  At the present, I am researching the KJV 21st century edition, which some have recently changed to.<<

I understand your love of the KJV. I have no problem with those who love their Bible. But if young people can't understand that version; they must get one they can. Help them get a good version. You wrote,

>>In any case, the NKJV makes the same errors as all the other "modern" translations by basing its words on faulty Westcott-Hort textual criticism.<<

Check inside the front cover of a NKJV or any book on modern versions. You will find the NKJV is a new improved edition of the old. It's a revision and based on the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV. There are many books that can help you with this info. You wrote,

>>Several areas of the scripture the NKJV has chosen to alter that couls make a person challenge his/her faith in the Bible as a whole.<<

Doctrine is not determined by one-verse or comparing translations. No Bible doctrine is in question by differences in translations or difficult verses. And the authenticity of a verse should never be defended simply because it happens to be a useful peg to hang a doctrine on. But why don't you provide an example? You wrote,

>>Noe I can not say the KJV is a good Bible version and say the ASB is just as good, because one has to wrong.<<

This is a strange way to approach your study of Scripture. The JW's use the same principle regarding the NWT. The standard by which you condemn the ASB [and all others] is the KJV. So they are all wrong by default even before your search for the "most accurate translation". I have found places in the KJV that are wrong because the 'old' or 'middle' English is misleading. But my faith in God does not wavier because comparing translations is not the means to decide the reading of a particular verse.

The radicals claim the KJV is always right and never wrong. Their literature contains long lists where other versions differ from the KJV. They castigate these for differing and insist the KJV is correct. They think the KJV is never wrong on any verse or unclear in its rendering. This methodology proves nothing but it assumes what is yet to be proved. You wrote,

>>Either you believe that the KJV is good or you believe it is a deception, you can't walk the fence.<<

A "deception"? Why would I believe the KJV is a "deception"? It might be a poor translation and wrong in places but a "deception"? That sounds like a Conspiracy Theory. Radicals think Bible scholars; churches, theological Societies, colleges, translators, translations, textual critics, Vatican and the whole world are against them and against God. Everything is part of a great conspiracy, existing throughout church history. When describing this conspiracy they exaggerate their argument beyond truth and demonise others. Your wrote,

>>I can take you to many places where the NKJV does not agree with the Greek at all<<

Since when have KJ radicals taken any notice of what the Greek says? If I examine word-meanings in the original languages to understand the meaning of the KJV, this is rejected by the radicals. They believe if the Greek or Hebrew word-meanings differ from the word-meanings in the KJV, then the Greek MSS must be wrong.  They say the Greek has "no authority" in interpreting Scripture; the "final authority" is the KJV. One radical wrote, we "..don't even know if the originals were in Greek... in fact, the entire NT almost certainly was not written in Greek".  However, I note they quote the Greek as an authority, when it supports the KJV. You wrote,

>>but one thing you must be aware of is that the NKJV was updated with help from the New World Translation, the Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses<<

Not true! Supply your evidence. In 1975 an international group of some 130 scholars, editors and religious leaders began the NKJV revision. It was sponsored by Thomas Nelson Inc. None of these scholars were JW's from the Brooklyn JW Committe. The NKJV revisers worked under the guidelines of Sam Moore and proposed changes were based on a study of the KJV as compared with the documents in the original languages. I can post you pages of details if you want. The NKJV has nothing similar with the NWT. You wrote,

>>It is for this reason that the word "Comforter" in the KJV is translated "Helper" in the NKJV.  I look at God not as a Helper which would place Him a step below, but rather as a Comforter which puts him a step in the other direction.<<

The Greek word used in Jn.14:16 is 'parakletos' which means 'counsellor' or defending counsel. John has the idea of someone who is alongside another and thus 'a helper'. So either Counsellor [NIV] Comforter [LB] or 'Helper' describes the Holy Spirit. And either word could be used and they give us an added appreciation of the Greek word. You miss out on that. The KJ translators made thousands of marginal suggestions indicating other readings were as good as the ones they gave. Translators often have many words they can use yet must chose only one word.  You wrote,

>>It also appears as if you believe that all Christians are in a big Universal Church. The second you give me the address of the big Universal Church, I would like to write to her and meet her pastor and schedule our church to visit its assembling hall<<

All citizens 'born of the Spirit' Jn.3 make up the universal church whether in heaven or on earth [Eph1:22 3:16,21 5:23 Col.1:18,24]. The address is Jesus Christ Himself and He is in every born again believer. You must get out of your mind the church consists of bricks and mortar. The apostles did not refer to a edifice with pulpit, chancel and pews but a congregation of regenerated people built together like living stones. I'm not surprised if you think your church is the only true one. The evidence a man is 'born again' has nothing to do with the particular Bible version he reads and Christ is the centre of his faith NOT a Bible version. You wrote,

>>as the word ekklesia properly translated means "assembly."  Our church doesn't challenge the position of the rest of the Church.  We ARE the rest of the church, and every church has all authority to preach the gospel.<<

The problem is you can't preach the gospel without the KJ message. The gospel is too simple. KJ radicals add to the gospel their doctrine. Please explain why my letter about this was wrong. You wrote,

>>On my webpage, you will find this: Jesus said, "if any man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with Him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14: 23, 24)<<

An example here of the many Bible words and verses, which you people, reinterpret with meanings the original writers and speakers never intended. The cannon wasn't even complete when Jesus spoke. And Jesus in this verse is NOT speaking about the KJV and ignoring other versions. Are you telling me other versions are not God's Word? You wrote,

>>Despite His teachings, the words of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Father along with other words of the inspired Bible text, have been frequently omitted from translation,and instead, humanly paraphrased to reflect the beliefs of the modern authors in the NIV, the New American Standard Bible and other recent versions<<

The method by which you determine what words are Christ's and which are not is by your faith in the KJV. You trust a human translation more than God. What happens when scholars find words in the KJV that are in no Greek MS at all? You trust the KJV. You wrote,

>>We, the First Missionary Baptist Church, believe that, in fulfillment of the words of our Saviour, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35), God has preserved for nearly two thousand years His Holy Word, and that this same Word has been most recently preserved in the translation of the KJV.<<

Christ's words were in Aramaic and written in Greek. Regardless of how careful and how literal the translation of those words into English, the result is still English words. The semantic range of the English word will seldom (if ever) correspond exactly to the semantic range of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word (or expression) that underlines it. Translators repeatedly seek the dynamic equivalent. Even the 'formal equivalent' must take into account the meaning of languages, their syntax and idioms. And how the rendering is understood compared with how a reader of the original text would understand what he read. Is the KJV a literal word for word translation? No! There's many words added to complete sentences in English. So a translation can only bear witness to the meaning of the original, not to its exact words.

Of course God has marvellously 'preserved' the Bible. The words of the prophets and apostles have been recorded and preserved for generations. No other ancient book is attended by such a vast number of MSS. There are thousands and they prove God has preserved Scripture. The Holy Spirit has excised control to produce verbal inspiration, accuracy in every statement and divine wisdom in the words penned. God's Word is authoritative because it is the voice of God, it is intelligible because it is in the language of men. Inspiration then, is dynamical and not mechanical. You wrote,

>>It remains with wide acceptance and respect in matters of morals and judgement, which is not true of other versions of the Bible. The KJV attempts the most accurate word for word translation, while others are greatly paraphrased, robbing from them the original meaning of God's Word. The wordings of these modern versions question doctrines that are precious to our church, including such as the parentage of Jesus, the virgin birth, and, thus, the deity of Christ.<<

Rubbish! I have been through this verse by verse with the radicals. They run for cover when their claims are answered.  Do you have a new slant on the definition of sin? Are you saying that to read any other version is "apostate unbelief"? But what you are saying, is that no one can be sure of salvation unless they read the KJV [that's why I say 'rubbish'].

One radical said if I use another version because I think its more correct than the KJV and are not prepared to admit the KJV is right, then in effect I'm "telling the Holy Spirit He is wrong". This is referred to as, "next door to the unpardonable sin".  In this manner, they parallel the wilful rejection of the Gospel with a wilful rejection of the KJV. Completely unscriptural. Jesus refers to those who commit the "unpardonable sin" as in danger of eternal damnation (Mtt.12:31-32). But He was not talking about using Bible versions. And most commentators believe that those who know Christ as their Saviour can ever commit this 'unpardonable sin'. So its another example of poor Scriptural exegesis by radicals.

They insist Christian's cannot grow in faith without the KJV. And if a Christian use any other version they have "forsaken God's word" and will be "punished" by God. Yet the facts are, Christian's can use any version all their life without developing any of the strange ideas of this group, remain sound in doctrine and grow spiritually in the Lord. Christian's are not characterised or identified by the language or translation they use. They are characterised by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal.3:1), their love of Christ (Jn.14:15) and their  "love one to another" (Jn.13:35).

The testimony of God's people is that God is using the clarity of modern versions to feed, speak and guide His people. Such Christian's are not "Bible-hating, Bible-rejecting apostates". But they testify to receiving comfort, encouragement and guidance from God through modern versions. God speaks to men and glorifies His name through them. You wrote,

>>Therefore, we recognize only the KJV as the best English translation, and recommend its exclusive use by all churches, pastors, and individuals.<<

The fact is the Bible is not the greatest story ever told if nobody understands the words. The KJV abounds mysterious pronouns and phrases that can be misunderstood. It has complicated language, obscure and awkward words and difficult sentence structure. Words like justification, reconciliation, sanctification, propitiation, atonement, salvation and righteousness are obscure in meaning for millions today, yet their meaning is still found in modern versions. These words are not used in everyday English so they hold little or no meaning for those who try to read the KJV. Such people give-up frustrated by the confusing jargon. Big words can block the readers view of God. While these words seem old and traditional in 1611 they were not. The aim of the KJV translators was to make Scripture easy to understand for the common man. Yet they were accused of not using certain "old ecclesiastical words". To this they replied that words were not "images to be worshipped". They realised words change and no word in one language can fully express the meaning of a word in another language. Each generation must find the best way to express the truth of the Biblical text. They said, "We desire that the Scriptures may be understood even of the very vulgar" That is, people unaccustomed to traditional biblical jargon, because Scripture is the means of evangelism. You wrote,

>> We solely use the KJV in devotions, sermons, lessons, and in our joint meetings with other New Testament Churches. We also make it the primary source of doctrine in home studies. We praise its continued use through centuries past, and also for centuries to come. We exhort other pastors and leaders to refrain from using versions that remove verses from the Holy Bible, and add words of their own without concern for the dangers to the Faith.<<

So Christians are not allowed to read or use the version of their choice? Is the idea of freedom, preference and toleration to you unacceptable? The radicals call all Christians who don't use the KJV, "fools, deceived and hypocrites". And so urge them not to trust their Bibles but burn them, because they believe using other translations is "apostatising". People who burn books will burn people. The radicals think if you don't use the KJV, you don't know what is right or wrong and you have no final authority for Christian living. You wrote,

>>We remind all people reading this article of the verse containing the warning of Almighty God: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19)<<

I'm amazed Chad that you can read the Bible and apply it only to the KJV. Do you think the KJV prophesied the coming of the KJV? If you stop thinking the KJV refers to the KJV in the KJV, you would do yourself a service.  Yet even if I take this verse the way you want me to, what about the tens of thousands of changes in the KJV over the years?

Looking forward to your reply and answering the points raised in my mail.  In His Service,
Mark
______________

Dear Travis

Thanks for your email, although it’s very brief and avoids the difficult issues. I would like to reply to your email and cover every point raised. You wrote,

>>I would like to respond to your e-mail-First drop the Dr from your name it is apparent you are not a student of the preserved word of God.<<

The idea of dropping the 'Pastor' or “Dr” from names has little to do with the KJ sideshow “Pastor” Travis.  You wrote,

>>I am just a little nobody I have nothing to claim but Gods leading me 21 years ago to come to the frigid north and start a Bible Preaching Church holding forth the word of truth<<

Very noble. You wrote,

>>You quoted from the NIV any student of the Word would know that all versions the last 100 years have come from corrupt text only the KJV is a safe standard to follow<<

I will come to the text question soon. But is the NIV the Word of God? Why not? Does it contain parts of God’s Word? Can one be converted through reading it?  “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God” [1 Pet 1:23].  Please define what you mean by the Word of God. And how much of God’s Word is in other versions. God confirms that men have received His Word by giving them the Holy Spirit [Ac.2:38, 5:32 Gal.3:3,5].  So if I only spoke Chinese, I could know God and walk in truth, yet having never read the KJV. Why? Because salvation, knowing God and truth have nothing to do with learning English. And because there’s no uncertain doctrine in our translations resulting from so-called translation mistakes.  You wrote,

I can look -

This reveals how little you know of “new versions”. You wrote,

>>I am not a Ruckmanite, I am an old fashion  God Preserving Bible preaching servant--You are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth on a settled word<<

Coming to “the knowledge of the truth” has nothing to do with which translation one prefers or uses. According to the Bible it refers to those who come to know Christ as their Saviour [2 Tim.2:25 Titus 1:1-2 1 Tim.2:4]. But it’s interesting your definition of “truth” relates to the KJV because Jesus would disagree [Jn14:6]. You are twisting Scripture and giving words and verses meaning that the original writers never intended. You are fabricating something that is not in the Bible, making it say something it does not. In some ways that is “old fashion” although the KJ gang only formed in the last century. You wrote,

>>20 years from now you will still be looking for God's Word and I hold it today in my hand in the KJV text<<

20 years from now the KJV will be even harder to read, even less read. Is that what you want? A ‘museum piece’ on display? I hold God’s Word “today in my hand” it's called the Bible. You argue over which version. Common sense tells most Christians there are many versions or translations of the Bible. Whether KJV or NIV the "V" stands for 'version'. Millions of Christians [who can't speak English] could offer you their version, but you would burn it. Do you know what’s really sad Travis? You have NOTHING to offer them that they can read. You offer them a book, which they CANNOT read. You wrote,

>>-Question NIV has 7000 deletions compared to the KJV are you telling me there is 7000 mistakes in the old text?<<

It only takes one error to fail the perfect test. You tell me, did the 1611 have any errors? Christians have always been translating the Bible into other languages. Before the Printing Press (1455) all literature was laboriously hand copied. When scribes hand-copied documents they made mistakes which resulted in errors intruding over the centuries. The more frequently copies were made, the more errors the copies acquired. And of all the thousands of MSS today there’s none without error and no two agree exactly. So it’s nonsense to argue any MS (or text-type) is inerrant, that term must be reserved for the originals. Early MSS generally have few errors compared to those of the late middle Ages because less copying between MS and the autograph means better copies.  Although some early MSS were carelessly copied and their early date does not mean greater accuracy.

Yet today’s KJV is not the “word-for-word…unaltered 1611”. The orthographical errors alone verify a huge numbers of alterations

In 1612 the KJV under went the first reprint for corrections. In 1613 another edition, which corrected some errors but introduced others. It contained over 300 differences from the 1611. Criticisms resulted in a further revision in 1629. In 1638 an attempt was made to produce an "authentique corrected Bible".  This was undertaken by a committee including two of the original translators. These two ‘original translators’ recognised errors in the 1611 requiring attention. In 1653 there was another call for revision because of errors in printing, translation, and language but nothing came of the proposal. In 1675 a spelling revision was made. In 1762 another corrected edition. And yet another in 1769.  KJ radicals are forced to admit this 1769 is the KJV used today and they don’t tell us which KJV has less errors, the 1611 or 1769?

So there has been a long history of changes and errors. In 1631 an error resulted in the KJV been called the “Wicked Bible” and in 1795 been called the “Murderer’s Bible”. And so the same criticisms you make about other versions are true of the KJV.

One KJ radical wrote to me saying there were about “24,000” changes in the KJV. Resulting from typographical, textual, spelling mistakes and printing errors.  He ensured me “these errors have been corrected” [his words not mine].  But he also wrote,  “If you change ANYTHING you are a Bible Corrector” And “How can the Word of God contain even ONE error?” It’s amazing if you can’t see the contradiction here.  I ask you, how can an honest person believe the 1611 is inerrant when confronted by 24,000 mistakes?

Does 24,000 mistakes mean we must now go “looking” for God’s Word? No! Because Biblical faith is not “faith” in a language translation.  When Paul says the “just shall live by faith” it is faith in “ - - the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation”  [See Rom.1:15-16].   While I have “faith” in God’s Word, translation mistakes don’t rob me of truth or deny me God’s promises. When I read words like “unicorn” in the KJV [Deut.33:17] I don’t throw away the KJV or wonder if I have eternal life. You wrote,

>>There is a warning in the last chapter of Revelation adding to and taking away from the Word<<

You assume Rev.22:18 is referring to the KJV or the TR. What John is saying here is that his book is not to be falsified by addition or excision, by the interpolation of unauthorized doctrines or the neglect of essential ones (compare Deut 4:2; 12:32).

There's many well-known passages affirming the inspiration of Scripture and the sanctity and immutability of God's work (eg. Dt.4:2 Pro.30:5-6 Ps.119:89,32 Rev.22:19 etc). These verses are so frequently cited as if their existence entails the adoption of the TR. Even if your interpretation of the cited were correct, you are left with an insoluble problem in the Byzantine tradition itself [ie No two MSS agree   perfectly]. If however, your theological argument is to be taken in the rigorous way you want me to take it, your own preferred text-type falls under condemnation along with the other text-types. There is only a difference of degree between the textual variants that exist within one textual tradition and the textual variants found when two or more textual traditions are compared. If verbal inspiration is theologically tied to one textual tradition, it does not escape the kind of problems presented if more than one textual tradition is admitted.

The TR in particular has major problems to overcome. A dozen or so readings in the KJV have no support in any Greek MS whatever. The last few verses of Revelation can be traced back to Erasmus who had to prepare a Greek MS for these by translating back from the Vulgate. If you condemn those who add to God's Word, you must urge us to throw away our KJV along with the other "perversions” you radicals speak of. You wrote,

>>May the Good Lord open your eyes to the truth you are just quoting from Dr. Bottlestopper on your views= God can save anyone in anyway he  shall choose even thru nature<<

Again you associate ‘truth’ with one version of the Bible.  If the KJV is incorrect on anything, then you are stuck. You are committed to the error regardless of anything. In Heb.4:10 the KJV says “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day”. What? Jesus hasn’t given rest? Then what does this mean? Heb.4:10 speaks of Joshua not Jesus [see a modern translation]. But you are committed to error or contradiction in the KJV and must defend it regardless of "the truth".

In order to believe what you do, you ignore truth. You don’t allow the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, for you the English WORDS in the KJV are more important than the Spirit of TRUTH who takes Scripture and reveals it. I don’t trust translators explicitly as you do. And I don’t ignore the fact that Scripture is dead letter without the Holy Spirit revealing its truth. The Holy Spirit reveals to me the Bible came from God, you however seem to be saying over and over it came from the KJ translators.

Hope you can reply. Sincerely

Mark Purchase

_______________________

Thanks for writing Roger,

Good of you to respond and contribute to the discussion. You wrote,

>>Your missive was very informative. You ovbiously do not know there are many different, uh, flavors of KJV only people.  When you take one group and paint the rest with the same color you sound like our president.  He does have problems with credibility, doesn't he?<<

Yes, there are different flavors of KJ user. Yet the KJV itself doesn’t turn people into the radical mob. It’s when people follow a source of information that they become antagonistic towards users of other versions. But most users of the KJ are courteous, honest Christians [I hope]. You wrote,

>>There are so many examples of error in your letter but I will take only one to illustrate.  Your condemnation of "Easter" is unfortunate.  The extreme bible correctors have used this and sucked good people into their error many times.  I am not going to even give the reasons to you that this is the best translation.  If you are honest you can look up both sides and then maybe you will understand.  I doubt it though.<<

The arguments to include “Easter” have been aired many times. I mentioned Easter because the radicals have a clear problem. In the end, they must claim the text was correctly altered to include the word. Yet Easter wasn’t used or known by Luke it’s foreign to Acts and all the MSS. The KJ translators introduced “Esotre” from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books. Were they right and Luke was wrong? That’s the choice you must make. I would rather know what Luke wrote, while you would rather follow the 1611 translators, and that’s the bottom line. You wrote,

>>You sound like your mind is made up and you do not wish to be destracted by the truth.<<

When you suggested I “do not need to respond to this” your mind appeared closed. Most of the cults also ignore truth and the facts. I’m happy to read and study all the evidence you offer. Yet from the many emails I posted [this time] few responded, perhaps suggesting their minds are made up. You write,

>>I believe that the KJV is taken from the preserved Greek text and not the corrupted Vaticanus or Siniaticus<<

I’m not oblivious to the fact the KJ radicals fabricate their own history regarding texts and MSS. They believe in a conspiracy theory against the KJV before and after 1611. And the stories they tell are long, short and half true. Very few are able to check their claims. They think the Byzantine text-type of the Eastern church underpinning the 1611 is eminently pure. Everything else is labelled “rubbish, perverse and corrupt”, although these MSS are not corrupt in the sense you and I use the words.

As you know the KJV is based on the Byzantine text-type. But has anyone told you that of all the MSS in this tradition, no two agree perfectly? So to claim special inspiration is ridiculous. Most MSS are relatively late and cannot be found in the earliest Greek MSS, nor the earliest Bible versions, or the quotations of the early church writers. Those readings found in the ante-Nicene fathers are also Western or Alexandrian readings and prove they are equal (not better) to other texts. A primary feature of this text-type is the tendency to conflate readings. Signs of secondary influence are the 38 major harmonisations, yet the Alexandrian text-type has only one.  It’s correctly said its the text of the Great Reformation, but also correct that they had no other option available to them.

Most modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text-type. The radicals incorrectly claim this text-type “attacks the deity of Christ”, the “virgin birth” and salvation by grace. This is completely untrue. For example, the NIV ascribes deity to Jesus where the KJV does not – Jn.1:18 Titus 1:13  2 Pet.1:1 (Christ’s deity is affirmed in modern translations with the understandable exception of the NWT). The word “deity” is not even found in the KJV. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the only exemplars of this text. It’s found in quotations by ante-Nicene fathers and traced back to the 2nd century and early versions, so it has excellent credentials. The best Western and Alexandrian texts have been discoveries of the last two centuries. You wrote,

>>Is it really hard for you to believe that God could preserve His Word as he said?<<

I rejoice that God has marvellously preserved His Word. The words of the prophets and apostles have been recorded and preserved for generations. No other ancient book is attended by such a vast number of MSS. There's thousands and they prove God has preserved Scripture. The Holy Spirit has excised control to produce inspiration, accuracy in every statement and divine wisdom in the words penned. Yet a translation can only bear witness to the meaning of the original, not to its exact words.
 
But God did not promise to preserve the original autographs. And why would the phrase “God could preserve His Word” exclude other translations?  No doubt you will quote  Psa.12:6-7. However, this Psalm is not referring to the work of scribes, nor God promising to preserve His word on MSS forever. God didn't preserve the original autographs and this is evident in that we don't have them. No one can produce those ‘very words’ in any manuscript. So nothing in this Psalm necessitates that a future English translation is referred to while other translations are not! If I apply Psa.12 to the KJV, then why don’t we have the original 1611 KJV? A correct meaning Psa. 12:6-7 is discovered in a modern translation and when read in context.  You wrote,

>>Maybe you need to check out your salvation, or at least your attitude.<<

Lets talk about “attitude” first. I have read some of the literature the KJ radicals publish. I would call it “hate literature”. Those who use other versions or question KJ dogma are described as – “lairs, fools, dung, stupid-jerks, dogs, blasphemers, brain-washed, up-starts, hypocrites, deceitful” etc. Some comments are slanderous. I also learn the radicals are also known for hate-mail campaigns and abusive phone-calls to those who hold contrary views. I would think this kind antagonism is the "attitude" that needs 'checking' Roger.  You wrote,

>>Of course people can get saved using other translations.  You are less than honest if you say we KJV people believe they cannot.<<

Now lets talk about salvation. It is the KJ radicals who QUESTION that “people can get saved using other translations”. Some radicals argue so strongly that all other versions are “works of the Devil - - Satanic imitations - - lies - - polluted counterfeit rubbish” and “full of mistakes” that they are untrustworthy. So they say one can’t be SURE about ANY doctrine unless the KJV is consulted. They say,  “an unsaved person can only be saved and born again by the Word of God” which they insist is the KJV, not the NIV etc. One radical wrote,

“How do you know that you are saved? Please DON’T say ‘ - because the Bible says so’, or ‘the Scriptures say so’ or - the word of God says so - if you can't produce that Bible”.

True, I couldn't be SURE about salvation, because other versions are called 'Satanic and untrustworthy'. He is saying no one can be sure regarding salvation unless one produces the KJV.  Another radical wrote, “God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more then one language”. The language they insist God has chosen is English. Anyone thinking about this realises the serious implications. Salvation is intrinsically linked to a language and a Bible version. Thankfully you and I agree. I believe Scripture does not teach that salvation rests on languages or translations, but on Christ's atoning work and His death and resurrection (Jn.3:16-17 Rom.10:9). Even the KJV itself will not support the claims of the radicals.

This is why I said "there will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV and never spoke English. They simply accepted the Gospel message". If they never read the 1611 or KJV, it questions your doctrine. You wrote,

>>Other translations contain God's Word, The KJV is God's Word.<<

The problem I have with this is two fold.
[1] Do they contain parts of God’s Word? Who determines what parts are God’s Word and which are not? Your standard by which they are measured is the KJV. What if the KJV is wrong anywhere? You answer; ‘no never wrong anywhere on anything.’ The radicals claim,

“How can the true 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”.

[This last chap mentions Prs 30:5 and ignores vs 6 - “Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”. The KJ translators added words to make the KJV conform to English. These words were printed in roman type to indicate there was no exact equivalent in the original. In today’s KJV (& the NASB) the "supplied” words are printed in italics]. So could you provide examples of God’s Word [or words] in other versions?

[2] The changes in today’s KJV, from the 1611 have been estimated at 75,000. Whether 45,000, 75,000 or 1,000 why argue all others have corrections and changes and avoid these words concerning the KJV? Today’s KJV is not the “word- for - word - unaltered 1611”. The orthographical errors alone verify a huge numbers of alterations.

>>See the difference.  If I am wrong (and I am not) then I am guilty of trusting God too much.<<

“The test of inspiration is that the Bible finds me, not that I find it”