Just the other day ago I contacted a church (one that was in my list of
churches to attend/minister when I move back to the SF Bay area to find
steady work). The church was KJV only, and this meant I could never
serve there in Church Education ministries/Small groups/Counseling or
something along those lines if I was not a KJV only radical. Even if I
did other non teaching type service, I could never land a career there
not being a KJV only radical.

Just the other day ago I contacted a church (one that was in my list of
churches to attend/minister when I move back to the SF Bay area to find
steady work). The church was KJV only, and this meant I could never
serve there in Church Education ministries/Small groups/Counseling or
something along those lines if I was not a KJV only radical. Even if I
did other non teaching type service, I could never land a career there
not being a KJV only radical.

The KJV being a very beautiful translation has a number of errors. Like
the NIV, NASB and other translations. For one the KJV thinks there are
unicorns, and another the KJV thinks corn came from Egypt.

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors

Questions for "KJV only" advocates:

Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from
others.

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
5. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
6. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God
not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
7. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100%
error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
8. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate
translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God,
there would be no alternates!
9. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did
they not know it?
10. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed
from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening
Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators
to the Reader."?
11. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR
Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English
is correct?
12. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word
inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
13. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really
think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English
dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
14. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are
wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright
the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote
the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into
public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public
domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted"
then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the
Bible?
15. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with
the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the
ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in
favour of the translation)
16. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was
translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier
than the 10th century?
17. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the
last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV?
Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated
into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a
translation of a translation?
18. Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is
clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts?
Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an
"archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the
original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19
"tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a
powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their
skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and
"phileo" love words.)
19. Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in
the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God
inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading
chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as
descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection
manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim,
prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and
reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
20. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel
According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel
According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were
influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false
doctrine of "sainthood"?
21. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon
church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired
translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of
the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do
KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable
evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very
first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition;
BoM- 1831 edition)
22. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern
translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV,
is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and
none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
23. Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the
use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild
goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real
name of these creatures is?
24. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to
correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn
13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt
5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown
into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
25. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in
identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR
DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
26. Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for
differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles?
(Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of
God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to
deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's
confession in Mt 27:54.)
27. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error
free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no
Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase
"book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek
manuscripts read "tree of life"?
28. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half
of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript
probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy
(or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are
not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last
half of this verse)
29. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV
in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using
the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
30. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to
call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If
not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century
English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did
our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA
BIBLE translation with them to North America?
31. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest
[poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
32. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the
word of God"?
33. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can
"correct" the English?
34. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own
Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
35. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired
translation"?
36. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2
Tim. 3:16]
37. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" 1611, or any of
the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701,
1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
38. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others]
teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to
Matthew 5:18?
39. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His
Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
40. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were
destroyed?
41. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their
New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of
KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek"
to translate from?
42. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
43. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place
without "the word of God"?
44. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the
Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles
are well-known and copies still exist].
45. 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?
46. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537],
or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely
infallible?
47. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely
inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the
"incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
48. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew
and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or
improvement?
49. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and
inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore
reason thus "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of
man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost"?
50. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture
"whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah
34:16?
51. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture
"sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
52. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
53. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to
changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of
changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals,
articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the
addition and deletion of words would you say the KJV was "verbally
inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or
1850?
54. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat
on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in
English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that
praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal
Person . . ." IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King
James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation
Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf
Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King"
Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I"
Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353,
382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36,
99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
55. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who
worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in
translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily"
throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV"
Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
56. Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at
James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV
reader?
57. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36
in the KJV?
58. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke
7:20 in the KJV?
59. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense
to the modern-English KJV reader? "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open
unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye
are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I
speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood
from the New International Version [NIV] "We have spoken freely to you,
Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding
our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a
fair exchange I speak as to my children open wide your hearts also."
60. 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?
61. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke
14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said
in Luke 4: 8? [Remember you may not go the Greek for any "light" if
you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
62. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16,
26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again you may not go the Greek for
any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
63. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No
"day" here in Greek]
64. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according
to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at
Luke 14:10]
65. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that
Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's
"saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page
485 see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his &
many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
66. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the
correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit,"
and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent,
even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is
Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of
language does not permit a 'perfect' translation the semantic area of
words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete
overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English
is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao"
[translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
67. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 "No
one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible
is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is
that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and
inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate
rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the
Bible, page 17]
68. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our
KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The
Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
69. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages
to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

The KJV being a very beautiful translation has a number of errors.

Just the other day ago I contacted a church (one that was in my list of
churches to attend/minister when I move back to the SF Bay area to find
steady work). The church was KJV only, and this meant I could never
serve there in Church Education ministries/Small groups/Counseling or
something along those lines if I was not a KJV only radical. Even if I
did other non teaching type service, I could never land a career there
not being a KJV only radical.

The KJV being a very beautiful translation has a number of errors. Like
the NIV, NASB and other translations. For one the KJV thinks there are
unicorns, and another the KJV thinks corn came from Egypt.

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors

Questions for "KJV only" advocates:

Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from
others.

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
5. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
6. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God
not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
7. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100%
error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
8. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate
translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God,
there would be no alternates!
9. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did
they not know it?
10. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed
from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening
Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators
to the Reader."?
11. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR
Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English
is correct?
12. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word
inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
13. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really
think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English
dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
14. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are
wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright
the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote
the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into
public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public
domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted"
then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the
Bible?
15. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with
the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the
ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in
favour of the translation)
16. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was
translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier
than the 10th century?
17. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the
last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV?
Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated
into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a
translation of a translation?
18. Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is
clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts?
Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an
"archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the
original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19
"tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a
powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their
skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and
"phileo" love words.)
19. Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in
the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God
inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading
chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as
descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection
manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim,
prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and
reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
20. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel
According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel
According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were
influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false
doctrine of "sainthood"?
21. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon
church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired
translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of
the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do
KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable
evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very
first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition;
BoM- 1831 edition)
22. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern
translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV,
is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and
none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
23. Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the
use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild
goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real
name of these creatures is?
24. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to
correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn
13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt
5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown
into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
25. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in
identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR
DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
26. Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for
differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles?
(Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of
God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to
deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's
confession in Mt 27:54.)
27. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error
free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no
Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase
"book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek
manuscripts read "tree of life"?
28. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half
of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript
probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy
(or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are
not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last
half of this verse)
29. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV
in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using
the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
30. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to
call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If
not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century
English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did
our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA
BIBLE translation with them to North America?
31. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest
[poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
32. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the
word of God"?
33. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can
"correct" the English?
34. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own
Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
35. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired
translation"?
36. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2
Tim. 3:16]
37. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" 1611, or any of
the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701,
1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
38. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others]
teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to
Matthew 5:18?
39. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His
Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
40. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were
destroyed?
41. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their
New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of
KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek"
to translate from?
42. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
43. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place
without "the word of God"?
44. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the
Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles
are well-known and copies still exist].
45. 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?
46. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537],
or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely
infallible?
47. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely
inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the
"incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
48. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew
and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or
improvement?
49. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and
inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore
reason thus "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of
man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost"?
50. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture
"whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah
34:16?
51. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture
"sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
52. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
53. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to
changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of
changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals,
articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the
addition and deletion of words would you say the KJV was "verbally
inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or
1850?
54. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat
on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in
English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that
praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal
Person . . ." IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King
James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation
Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf
Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King"
Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I"
Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353,
382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36,
99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
55. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who
worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in
translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily"
throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV"
Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
56. Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at
James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV
reader?
57. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36
in the KJV?
58. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke
7:20 in the KJV?
59. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense
to the modern-English KJV reader? "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open
unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye
are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I
speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood
from the New International Version [NIV] "We have spoken freely to you,
Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding
our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a
fair exchange I speak as to my children open wide your hearts also."
60. 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?
61. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke
14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said
in Luke 4: 8? [Remember you may not go the Greek for any "light" if
you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
62. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16,
26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again you may not go the Greek for
any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
63. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No
"day" here in Greek]
64. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according
to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at
Luke 14:10]
65. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that
Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's
"saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page
485 see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his &
many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
66. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the
correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit,"
and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent,
even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is
Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of
language does not permit a 'perfect' translation the semantic area of
words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete
overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English
is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao"
[translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
67. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 "No
one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible
is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is
that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and
inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate
rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the
Bible, page 17]
68. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our
KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The
Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
69. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages
to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]
--
John 1:6-9 There came a man who was sent from God;
his name was John. He came as a witness to testify
concerning that light, so that through him all men
might believe. He himself was not the light; he came
only as a witness to the light.
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/