1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
The correct title is The Holy Bible and the commented title is "The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations dilligently compared and revised by his Majesty's Special Commandment."
Of course, that is the spelling of the fourth edition. The first edition's commented title was, "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Traṇlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Traṇlations diligently compared and reuịed by his Maiesties ̣peciall Commandement."
Now I ask you, what "doctrine" or "sense" of the "original" title was changed from the first to the fourth? Not one word was changed. However, the letters were changed. What did Paul say about a preservation theory that insisted on letter-perfect conformance? Hint: 2 Cor. 3:6. All four are inspired.
Now let me ask you a question: Which revision (about one set of revisions per printing) of the NASV is inspired? The old American Standard? the New American Standard? or the Revised American Standard? How about the gender-free revision that the NASB translators announced but never produced? you know, the revision that scared the pants off Fundamentalists enough to abandon their NASVs and flee to the NIV paraphrase? (That's right, the NIV is a paraphrase, not a translation.) Now, which revision (about one per print run) of the NIV is inspired? Or is it the original International Version, which fizzled as a mist droplet on a red-hot boiler plate?
If you have no inspired Bible, why are you trying to take mine? I have one, you don't. Isn't that a little hypocritical of you?
2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
I'd recommend the Bishop's Bible. It was the Bible before 1611. The Geneva Bible, which was the translation between the Bishop's and the HOLY BIBLE, was a step backwards; it was more a commentary than a pure translation. Indeed, it sowed more controversy than saved souls. There are two causes contributing to the plethora of Bible translations, not only into English, but also into other languages. The first cause was the invention of the printing press. The second cause stems from that invention, for many Bible versions arose between 1525 and 1611 because English and other languages on the Continent were in flux. The languages were stabilizing on a continental scale, not just local communities each with its own dialect which may or may not be intelligible to a neighboring community. The 1611 directly stabilized the English language in terms of stabilizing word meanings and, to a lesser extent, sentence structure. It took a bit longer to stabilize spelling, which is why you can slanderously claim that the 1611 went through four "revisions" instead of four "editions." The English Bible went through seven revisions prior to the HOLY BIBLE
If you want to refer to the source documents for the English translations, the authoritative documents were the Greek Orthodox texts prior to the fourteenth century, and the Old Latin or Italic of the Piedmont. Starting in the fourteenth century, the Greek Orthodox Church started "correcting" their Greek text to conform to the "scholarship" of the time. For Western Europe that meant the final authority was the Old Latin as preserved by the churches of the Piedmont. Translations existed at the time in every major European language, some based on the Old Latin, others on the corrupt Vulgate of Jerome. The standardization of the languages precipitated the need for textual revisions to accommodate the new, solidified, languages.
Today we hear the drum beat that our language is changing. That is true, but it is not changing in order to reach the next stable point; it is destabilizing. Consider, dictionaries used to tell us what a word was suppose to mean, now they tell us how a word is being used by the populace. Note the affect this has on words such as tolerance. Tolerance used to mean to allow something that one disagreed with. Now it means accepting and celebrating anything we disagree with and if anyone does anything different, that person is reckoned as intolerant and must be shunned. So, you see, the new tolerance is really the old intolerance. The result is that one can no longer think in terms of words and sentences but must rely on feelings, on emotions. That is what happens when you kick the Truth, the Way and the Life out of your life. But you, dear questioner, know all this because you have throughly investigated the KJV-only literature, haven't you? So why, if you know these answers, do you ask this stupid question? Isn't that a bit hypocritical of you?
3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Have you forgotten the ninth commandment which says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against the neighbour"? The NASV says "You shall not bear false witness against you neighbor." Is that "you" singular or plural? That is, is it all right for one person to bear false witness but not two or more against the same person? No KJV-Only person believes that, and you know it. Is that an example of your "Speaking the truth in love" slogan in action? Rather hypocritical of you, isn't it?
4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
Let me repeat the title: The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New. Where is the Apocrypha in that title?
In the days in which the Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading for its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic Church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
So I ask my erstwhile opposition: since the oldest and best manuscripts include the apocrypha woven into the Old Testament, why is the Apocrypha not included in the NASV, NIV, etc. which are based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? A bit of a double standard, n'est ce pas?
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!
Give me the reference (name of author, name of book or paper, complete reference including page number) to any KJV advocate's book (not an Internet site since anyone can spout nonsense on the Internet) who claims that "God always gives the world his word in one language." I have never come upon such a statement.
Which Koine Greek did God use to inspire the New Testament? Tell the people. Was it the Vernacular Koine of the street (as the TR), or the Literary Koine of the scholars (as the Alexandrian manuscripts)? You have two conflicting authorities. From AD 150 until ca. 1500, Western Europe was not evangelized by the Greek but by the Latin. The Eastern churches kept the Greek but had very little fruit, unless you count icons as fruit. For the last 400 years the world has been evangelized by the A.V. The A.V. has yielded greatly more fruit than all the Greek or Hebrew originals ever did.
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?
The question assumes that the A.V. was written in common or Elizabethan English. It was not. The English of the A.V. was specifically designed to receive the words of God in a language that could be understood by English readers. It is a pure language, untainted by secular meanings. It was the seedbed for all translations into other languages most particularly over the last 200 years. But as with the gospel, which was preached to all the world including the Americas by AD 150 and was rejected by most nations, so the words of God are now rejected by all nations at this present time; so why should God repeat the process in languages based on shifting sands when the KJB is still as accessible, readable, and inerrant as ever?
Why English? For the same reason that the Vatican permitted translations of the Scripture into every language except English. Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, each had the Bible in its own language prior to the Reformation, but translations into English were strictly forbidden. English is the richest language in earth, with close to a million words. French is second with 200,000 and the French government has set a limit to the number of words allowed in French which is why new English computer terms and slang are banned in France. English is also the language that is closest to Hebrew (when one ignores the vowels) of all the languages in the world. (Ask any English-speaking Jew who was raised with the Hebrew Bible.)
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?
Because printers set type, they do not edit the text. Typos are easy to spot and do not require but a quick check with another copy of the Bible to correct. The smallest meaningful unit conveying information is the word. The letter has no meaning except as a sound, and the Lord does not inspire letters, just linguistic structures based on words. We are commanded to keep his words, which means we are commanded to defend them and keep them free of adulteration. The command does not extend to fixed spelling.
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!
The marginal reading were thought to have some merit but were judged by the 23 review committees to fall short of the context of the scriptures as a whole. Thus the margin reading in Isaiah 14:12 (day star for Lucifer) has some historical significance, but does not follow the Hebrew (the word for star is nowhere found near the verse) and attributes a title assigned to the Lord Jesus Christ in II Peter 1:19 to Satan. The margin notes were allowed because there was great pressure by the liberals of the translation committee to include commentary in the text. (The Geneva Bible has extensive commentary intertwined with the text, for instance, and other, earlier translations did also.) It was never intended, nor should anyone assume that the margin notes were at all inspired. They most definitely are not. Neither were they intended to serve as alternate readings. That is a twentieth century invention. You find that in the New Scofield (KJV), for example, where all the margin readings from the AV have been put in the text while the real readings have been removed from the text and marginalized.
9. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
They did know it. The greatest critic of the translation among the translators was a Calvinist, Miles Smith, who did not think the translation Calvinistic enough, was commissioned to write "The Translators to the Reader" where he was free to vent his opposition. Even so, he was forced to confess that: "[W]e affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God ... we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." Other translators were more forceful in their statements about the power and the hand of the Lord upon the translators and their work. Only someone who had not read what the translators wrote about the translation process and fruit could frame such a question as this one.
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."?
That is up to the printer. Since these things are not part of the inspired text they are omitted by some printers to save money. The Dedicatory is usually still printed, as are margin notes which in modern AVs outnumber those of 1611. Except for cost savings, the only other reason to omit "The translators to the Reader" is that the anti-KJV horde can raise questions such as this one and similar ones and no one can easily check the work to discover that the questions are meaningless and devoid of understanding about what the translators thought of their work. Personally, I resent the omission of the Translators to the Reader. It is a prime example of Elizabethan English and confirms what I answered to questions 4, 6, 8, and 9 as well as answering question 2. The fact that these questions exist serves only to reveal how little the framer of these questions has read of the works by the translators, the commission King James gave the translators, the guidelines the translators were commanded to follow, and any understanding of 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?
Why do modern versions do the same thing? They, too, correct the Greek and Hebrew. God's word cannot contain grammatical errors, errors in gender, errors in fact and still be true. When these errors are found in any Greek text, the Greek text is to be corrected. It is unethical for you to fault an AV advocate for something you allow the translators of your favorite version.
12. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
The italics are not necessary for most Bible studies. There is nothing to be gained by omitting them and there will usually be a loss of meaning. The italics were used to convey the implicit meaning or to clarify the meaning in the source text. For example, I Jn 2:23 has half its words in italics. When I read the verse in another Reformation translation, I may not find but the first half of the words. Nevertheless, the words have the import expressed in the AV's italics of the verse. The same is true of the Greek.
In I Jn. 2:23, the italicized clause has two words, "hath" and "also," which are present in the Greek but shown in italics. About this verse, Paul Heaton, in his booklet entitled What About those Italicized Words? (1995, pp. 25-26) cites Harry Ironside: "Since the New Testament was translated in 1611 many other manuscripts have been discovered, and they all contain these words." The only mistake Charles Ryrie finds with this verse is the use of the italics: "The last part of the verse is apparently a genuine part of the original text and should not be italicized (as in the AV) as if it were not genuine."
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?
The language of a book that is the best seller in the entire world can hardly be said to be archaic, now can it? As stated above, the AV's language is neither Elizabethan not Old English; it is a special, sacred form of English even as Biblical Hebrew is a special, sacred form of Hebrew.
I do think it a good thing to use a dictionary, especially a pre-1964 dictionary (see answer to question 2 for the reasons why) but I seriously question one's intelligence if the dictionary is needed in "casual reading" for the definition of the word is usually found right after the word or within a verse or two either side of the word. Also, the meaning will generally be found at its first use. For instance, the word "Belial" is a transliterated word. Its first occurrence is in Deu. 13:13. It is there defined as those who withdraw themselves from believers to encourage people to "go and serve other gods, which ye have not known." Likewise, the word "earth" refers to dry land, not the globe (Gen. 1).
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?
Sorry, I have no such "feelings," I only have thoughts on such matters. Feelings are irrelevant to truth.
You forgot to add that the AV is copyrighted. Furthermore, its copyright cannot expire and is still in force today. Publication of the Scriptures in any lands under the British crown was restricted, in order to insure accuracy in printing, to the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses and to one other printer licensed by the king. In Scotland, special licenses are required. The copyright is held by the crown of England. As you can see, the copyright applies to printing the A.V. commercially, not in quotations. Also, the copyright is to insure the accuracy of the text, not to bring royalties to the Crown.
Modern copyright laws are extremely restrictive, limiting quotes to 200 words or less. Furthermore, International copyright law states that no copyrighted work can be stored in any memory device that can recall it. Technically this makes memorization of internationally-secured copyrights illegal.
Beyond that, God inspired the A.V. translation in response to the command of a king. Who but that royal house can copyright the words of God? Initially, the 1881 R.V. and the 1901 ASV were not copyrighted. However, after the new versions were exposed to unanswerable criticism, even to the point of ridicule, copyright was imposed to suppress criticism. The translators of modern versions claim no inspiration, no inerrancy; their words are their own and so they are free to copyright them. This leads to a problem, however. Since there are close to 230 new versions, each with its own copyright, we encounter a problem called "derivative copyright law." What this means is that each new version of the Bible must be substantively different than all the others. This means changing words or even inventing new words and doctrines. (The gender-free versions and the gay bibles are an example of how far derivative copyright laws have driven newer versions from the source text.) Because of derivative copyright law, each new version cannot help but be less accurate than its predecessors.
Since the copyrights on the works of men secure only the works of men, there is no problem. Have you never read that "The labourer is worthy of his hire" and "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"?
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)
Same as question 11. You speak as if there is only one TR, but there are 4 TRs. There is no "original."
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?
Absolutely! Do you now why Erasmus refused to use older texts, Vaticanus in particular? Do you know that the phrase, "the oldest and best," when applied to manuscripts meant manuscripts that were artistically lettered, best preserved, and dating no earlier than the fifth century? The oldest and best has nothing whatsoever to do with accuracy, preservation, or the keeping of the words of the Lord.
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?
Yes, isn't it amazing how little God thought of the originals? He didn't care to preserve them in the least. That being the case, does it not strike you as absurd that new-version advocates think they do God a favor when the try to recover what He thought not worth preserving? More amazing than that, what about the absurdity that God holds us responsible for obeying words we do not have, as if He does preserve them to this day in a form we can hold in our hands and read? Is not the quest for the original manuscripts the ultimate in anti-translation worship? Oh, but I forgot, I worship no such absurd god, for I have the words of God in each of my KJBs, just as God inspired them and as he preserved them [Psalm 12:6-7 oh, I almost forgot, the Bible dictionaries were discarded and counterfeit ones replaced them circa 1750, so I must give you a reference: cf. "Thou Shalt Keep Them: A biblical theology of the perfect preservation of Scripture," K. Brandenburg, ed., (El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing), pp. 29-33, 2003. Also look at the Ladino Bible of 1553, translated in Ferrara, Italy, by Jews expelled from Spain. It, too says that the words, not the people, are preserved].
The Old Latin, which should not be confused with the Vulgate of Jerome, was God's instrument for preserving his words in Western Europe. Since Catholicism, most of Protestantism and Orthodox have no use for Revelation it is no wonder that the Greek text needed to be recovered from the Latin.
Do you know that the theory that only the original autographs are inspired is only about 160 years old, originating from Princeton University? A corollary of that heresy is the superstition that no translation can be inspired. (Note the first sentence in the quote from Miles Smith in Q. 9.) The belief that translations can be inspired dates back at least as far as Eusebius, who reports it as characteristic of believers' translations since the Apostles.
By the way, can you give me a single scripture to back up your contention that a translation cannot be the word of God? Joseph's words to his brethren when they arrived in Hebrew are a translation. Are those words not inspired? What of the quotes of the Old Testament that are found in the New Testament? Many of those are changed, too.
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.)
Because it is the truth. The Greek dictionaries available and depended upon today are derived not from sacred text but from secular literature. Do you have any idea what that does to texts like Jas. 2:3 If we were to use the most common secular usage of the word "gay"? But that is precisely what was done to Bible dictionaries in the mid-1700s. Secular meanings were added to Bible words, indeed, in some cases, such as the Heb. word, "firmament," even replaced them.
You think "tremble" is a bad translation for phrisso? Let me point out that the meaning is uncertain, for Strong's says "appar. a prim. verb; to "bristle" or chill. i.e. shudder (fear). The word is one of thousands that have suffered under the revision of the Bible dictionaries. Besides, tremble has in it, too, the sense that the color of their underwear changed from white to brown. How's that for a powerful word picture?
Agape and phileo? Scripture uses them interchangeably. Even Critical Text (CT) scholars admit that too much is made of those two words. What about other words for love such as "eros," "storge," "praxis," "mania" and "ludis"? What about the many, many English words for love, some even unprintable? Greek has nothing on English in these respects.
For the archaic claim see answer to question 13.
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.)
Why do you insist that all commentary and notes have to be inerrant? No one but a desperate critic would claim that. You misrepresented the chapter outline (not headings) for SoS because every chapter is interpreted in the relationship between Christ and his Church, not just the Church. Furthermore, the Song of Solomon is indeed a picture of the Lord Jesus and his Bride, including the key to the resurrection (bet you missed that). When his church is persecuted, as Saul did, what did Jesus say? He said, "Saul, Saul, why persecuteth thou me?" Jesus so closely associates with his bride, the church founded on Peter's testimony, that anything done to it is equivalent to having done it to him (Mat. 25:40, 45, etc.). So what's your problem with the notes to Song of Solomon?
There is nothing wrong with the theology of Eliakim prefiguring the substitutionary death of Christ and his kingdom. Besides, "theology" means the word of God. How can you claim to have a grasp of theology if you do not have the words of God? If you think you have them, they must be "near thee, even in thy mouth," as both Testaments say. So where can I buy them? Be specific about editions and revision and version. Your problem is that you apply the theory of evolution to Scripture.
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"?
Why do you weary the saints with vain accusations? The translators rejected all Catholic false doctrine, even to the point of refusing to use Vaticanus when the Vatican offered access to it for the translation. And again, the headings are not inspired. God did not tell Luke to entitle his book Eyaggelion to kata Loykan. Someone else did that.
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)
The very first edition has thousands or errors? The thousands claim is specious; there were roughly 100 that needed changing. For instance, the first printing of the AV used a Gothic Black Face. Gothic type has some overlap with the Roman type which we commonly use today. However, Gothic has a few differences. For instance, the Gothic letter "u" looks like a Roman "v." Likewise, the Gothic "v" looks like the Roman "u." The Gothic "j" looks like the Roman "i." Thus the first printing of the AV uses words like euer, Iesus, and vp. If we convert these words to the Roman font, they are ever, Jesus, and up. To the "thousands of errors" advocates, converting these three words from Gothic to Roman fonts counts as three errors. However, the spelling of these words is the same. To count them as an error is equivalent to claiming the changing "word" from its Arial font to the Roman font, "word," counts as a spelling error.
As for the argument that faith in inspired translations identifies one with Mormonism there are a couple of things to say. First, the Mormons and the AV people are not alone; the Church of Rome identifies a specific thirteenth century edition of Jerome's Vulgate as the inerrant and inspired Bible. Second, the reason why inspired translations are taken for granted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormons is because inspired translations are what Bible-believing Christians have adhered to from the beginning. Not only that, but the Bible itself believes in inspired translations. For instance, Joseph spake Egyptian to his brethren, but his words are translated into Hebrew in Scripture. We find translations of Old Testament Hebrew passages in the Greek New Testament. Again, the translation is inspired. Double inspiration.
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?
Does the questioner realize that to say no translation can be inerrant means that translations of O.T. passages in the N.T. cannot be inerrant, either? So not even the original manuscripts could have been inerrant if they contained a translation from one language inot another, be it Joseph, or, as some suppose, the book of Mark, in Greek, is a translation from Hebrew. Also, Paul speaks in Hebrew which is reported in Greek in Acts.
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?
You do not know the real names; remember that the dictionaries were corrupted in the 1700s. These creatures mentioned in Scripture are real animals. For instance, the changing of dragon to hyena is based on the constellation of Draco. The entire western world sees a dragon there, but an obscure tribe of nomadic Bedouins sees a ring of camels surrounding a baby camel to protect it from hyenas. On that flimsy thread, modern dictionaries change dragon to hyena. This way, they think, they save God, not to mention themselves, from embarrassment in the eyes of the world. The above creatures are altered on similar grounds.
I shall only do unicorn. The Hebrew word translated "unicorn" (H7214) is from a root word re'em (H7213) meaning to be lifted up (Zech. 14:10); the word after re'em in Strong's dictionary (H7215) also stems from the same root and means "coral" because of its horn-like appearance. Despite this, modern usage equates being lifted up with power and thus avoids having to deal with the "mythical" unicorn. The Authorized Bible mentions unicorns nine times.
Modern versions insist that it be a "wild ox," or a "bull," or "rhinoceros." Margin notes for the same Hebrew word say "rhinoceros" in Job 39:9 and Isa. 34:7, but the "skipping" reference of Psalm 29:6 makes his doubtful, besides which Rhinos generally have two horns, not one. Job 39:9-12 ("Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?"); Psa. 29:16; and Isa. 34:7 superficially appear to support the "wild ox" margin reading of Deu. 33:17 (and Strong's Concordance), but the animal mentioned has only one horn. Every time unicorn is mentioned, the horn is singular, as in Ps. 92:10; if unicorn is plural, then more than one horn is mentioned as in Deu. 33:17 and Ps. 22:21. Why should there be only one horn if this is an ox which normally has two horns, especially since only half of the ox's power would be indicated by doing so? Besides, Hebrew has another word for ox (sowr), so that's not a valid alternative in light of the historic interpretation of re'em as "unicorn." We find unicorns together with bullocks and bulls in Isa. 34:7, thus ruling out that re'em was a bull or bullock. Unicorns are found in heaven in Ps. 22:21 and in Isa. 34:7. Also note that it takes more than one unicorn to supply Joseph with enough horns in Deu. 33:17, even though one bullock is involved. Modern (late Twentieth Century) "scholars" view the unicorn as an Arabian oryx, which has two straight, closely spaced horns, but it still has two horns and doesn't answer the above singular-plural argument. Isa. 34:7 reports that unicorns will return with Christ at what we know as the Second Advent.
It is easy to make broad generalizations and wild claims if one has never examined the evidence.
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)
Because demons can be good or bad in English and in Greek. Devils are always bad.
Rev. 20:14 says "death and hell (Gk. hades) are thrown into the lake of fire (Gk. pur), not hell. Hades is now considered to be a place of partying, orgies, and merriment for the dead. This is what the occult teaches the youth of today. Hades is not an English word, hell is. Gehenna is Heb. for a valley of lamentation; valley of torment. Note that by refusing to translate the Greek into English, you open up Pandora's box--literally.
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? Are you sure there are no distinctions? Have you spent any time at all looking at the passages? Gen. 15:6 and Rom. 4:3 speak of Abraham's believing God and both use "counted." Counted means to include in a reckoning. Gal. 3:6 is the same but uses "accounted" instead of "counted." Accounted means a reason for an action, in this case the reason for counting Abraham righteous. Rom. 4:9 speaks of faith, not belief, and uses "reckoned" which means to regard as. Rom. 4:22 uses "imputed" when referring to Abraham being persuaded (by evidence or reason) of the promises of God. Impute means to attribute or credit, to settle an account. These are all accounting terms. The King James wording is infinitely more precise than the NASV, let alone the NIV, and even the so-called Greek.
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.)
Actually, they did have rules; what you seem not to understand is that they are English rules, not Greek or Hebrew rules. In the case of Dan. 3:25, the Son of God is the same person as the Angel of the Lord (see Gen. 22:15-16). As far as Mat. 27:54 is concerned, the Greek says "God's Son," which is the same as "the Son of God." It is the worship of the originals, making idols of them even though they do not exist, that destroys the minds of men. The slavish use of the definite and indefinite articles leads to the wishy-washy passive voice of modern versions.
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"?
It's easy to make such claims when you haven't done your homework. Maybe your god won't call you into account for bearing false witness but mine will. "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do" is left out of Greek versions in general, but it is in the TR which is a reconstruction of the Greek text with an eye to correcting grammatical mistakes introduced by the Alexandrian text type and illiterate copyists hired for their artistic capabilities. It is found in the Old Latin and Italic Bibles which antedate the Vulgate. Furthermore, the Greek is quoted by Ephraem, Ambrose, and Lucifer of Cagliari. It's as I stated earlier, why hold up as authoritative what God did not care to preserve in the first place? Yes, the N.T. was issued in Greek, but within forty years the authoritative Bible was not the Greek but the Old Latin which God used to evangelize Europe.
All known Greek manuscripts is an gross overstatement. Only variant texts have been collated. Majority texts have yet to be collated. The vast majority of manuscripts are totally unstudied. If 80% of them had the verses in question, probably no one would know it. But be that as it may, the TR does say book of life, which is consistent with Ex. 32:32. People eat from the tree of life, they have no part of it, which supports the conclusion that the tree of life reading is sheer conjecture.
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)
Another lie. I Jn. 5:7-8's authenticity is said to have been doubted by Erasmus and Sir Isaac Newton. Tyndale's Bible (1526) makes the omission clearest, since he placed the missing parts in parenthesis, "(For there are three which bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost. And these three are one). For there are three which bear record (in earth:) the spirit, and water, and blood: and these three are one." Nevertheless, Wycliffe (ca. 1270) has it in his Latin-based translation. Here is a brief history of the evidence and controversy.
There are about 11 ancient manuscripts that testify of the verse, although only 6 have it within the main body of the text, and one of the manuscripts is now lost. These manuscripts are Erasmus' Codex Britannicus (now missing, but its reading is preserved in Erasmus' third edition), Codex Montfortianus (61 -- claimed, but not proven to be a forgery), Codex Regius (88), Codex Ravianus (omega 110), 221, 429, Codex Ottobanianus (629), 635, 636, 918, and 2318. It is found in all Latin manuscripts (8,000+), and in the Syriac Peshitta, a few Armenian manuscripts, and Georgian manuscripts. Tertullian (d. 220) alluded to the verse in his Adversus Praxean, (denied by modern scholarship), but Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) plainly quotes from the verse, as does Idacius Clarus (c. 350), Athanasius (350), and Jerome in his Epistle to Eustochium (450). Priscillian (d. 385) quotes it in Liber Apolgeticus, as do two works by Vigilus of Thapsus (490); Cassiodorus (480-570) quotes it, as does Fulgentius of Ruspe (510) in his Die Fide Catholica adv. Pintam.
The ancient Latin treatise called the Speculum testifies that the verse was to be found in the Old Italic Bible, and it is also found in the Old Italic fragments Codex Freisingensis (q and r). The ancient creed known as Expositio Fidei quotes the verse as does the confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius of Carthage (484), the Council of Carthage having used the verse against Arianism in 415. The early Latin Vulgate manuscript Fuldensis (546) is one of the few Latin manuscripts which does not include 1 John 5:7 and is often cited by opponents because of this; yet it actually quotes it in its prologue, which begs the conclusion that Fuldensis is simply a corrupted copy of a Bible version that did contain the disputed passage in its main text, but the corrupters missed it in the prologue.
One of the main reasons why majority text advocates believe the verse authentic is that it would have been appallingly bad Greek for the Apostle not to have written it originally. Without verse 7, the passage ignores an important fundamental of Greek grammar -- and such terribly inferior grammar is not evidences in the rest of John's writings. Without the seventh verse, to quote R. L. Dabney, "...the masculine article, numeral, and particle ... are made to agree directly with three neuters -- an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun ... where, according to a well-known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them..." J. A. Moorman says of having verse 6 followed by verse 8, "If the passage is removed from the Greek text, the two loose ends will not join up grammatically."
There is a legend which relates how the verse was added into Erasmus' third edition. Supposedly Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga both attacked him for omitting this verse. Erasmus is said to have responded to the effect that if Lee could show one Greek manuscript which included the verse, he's include it in his next edition. Lee sent an Irish manuscript, Montfortianus, which Lee is now claimed to have forged.
What is on the record is different. Lee accused Erasmus of negligence for not consulting enough manuscripts regarding this verse. Erasmus replied, "Is it negligence and impiety if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not in my reach?" He made no promise to include the verse. When he added the verse it was because he was convinced that it should be there. On November 1, 1533, Juan Ginz Sepulveda wrote to Erasmus enclosing 365 readings from Codex Vaticanus which differed from Erasmus' texts, but he did not change his text for such evidence. If Erasmus was smart enough to refuse 365 readings from Vaticanus, how could he be tricked by Lee using a "monk's forgery with the ink barely dry"?
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"?
You assume it is a grammatical error. There is no error. The rule is the same as the translators used with the cherubim. The rule applied is as follows: a single-faced version of the creature is called a cherub. The multi-faced creature is called a cherubim (the plural stems from the number of faces, not creatures). Several of the creatures are called cherubims. Since the seraphims are only found in Isa. 6:2 and 6, we see that the verses refer to multiple creatures of the multi-faced creatures depicted in Rev. 4:6 v.f.
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?
Jesus said, "Thy word is truth." Something flawed is not true. The word of God can only be the word of God if it consists solely of the words of God. The Geneva Bible can be considered the word of God by virtue of being based on the correct text although any deliberate departures from that text would disqualify it from that title. However, it is not a pure text. The notes interspersed into the text and its tendency towards Calvinistic legalism in its translations makes it the worst translation of the sixteenth century after the Douay.
31. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
See comments to question 30.
32. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
Yes, the Hebrew more than the Greek, though. I do not believe the Greek is refined enough to be a final authority. It served as a source document, a collation of best readings.
33. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
No. God did not preserve the Greek or use it to evangelize the world since Greek wasn't a universal language long enough before it was replaced by Latin.
34. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Yes, it can.
35. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
Yes, if translated at God's good pleasure.
36. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
Absolutely.
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?
A Bible is inspired only as long as the Holy Ghost resides in it. The AV is alive. It was alive in 1611 and it is still alive today. You have a secular interpretation of inspiration.
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?
Jot and tittles exist in most languages. They exist in Hebrew, in Greek, and in English. Jesus did not limit it to any one language, although Hebrew--not Greek--is the best fit since the Greek terms are transliterations of the Hebrew. The tittle refers to the Hebrew vowel points which have been part of the Hebrew text since the beginning. (Believe me, I can document this.)
39. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Why, in the translation, of course. Where else would God do it? By the way, why do you identify the second person of the Trinity with the Bible?
40. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
Did inspiration cease when the autographs were destroyed. Stupid question.
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?
Smith said "original tongues," not original Greek or original manuscripts.
42. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
It was lost long before that, circa AD 130 when the authority went to the Latin.
43. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
It was about 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].
Used by Reformers? The reformers produced the translations. The only Reformation translation without error is the A.V. Some have minor things like having the land near Paul's ship before the shipwreck.
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?
Do you really want to know? You're repeating yourself. Where was your Bible before 1881?
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?
No, the language wasn't ready for the inspired translation.
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]
Yes, but I could not have been born again if all I had was a modern version. They contain internal contradictions which means that they are not the word of God.
48. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
You don't get it, do you? The correction of the "originals" is a joke. Every translation does it, the modern ones more than the AV since the modern translations are so corrupt that you have to use the English/TR to correct them at times. The Hebrew is still preserved, but the Greek is not because God is not yet finished with the Jews whereas he's just about done with the Gentiles.
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"?
It was the will of God, who moved King James, the godliest king England ever had, to command the translation. The Holy Ghost did oversee the translation, as attested to by most of the translators.
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?
Both are correct. They both have the same sense.
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?
Both are correct, consider the variance in the wording in OT verses quoted in the NT.
52. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Anyone who publishes an AV without changing words such as changing throughly to thoroughly or alway to always. These are significant changes.
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?
That's your word against the facts. See above.
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]
I've researched the lie that King James was a sodomite and found it to stem from a Scottish-hating chamberlain whose belligerence and hatred of the King forced the King to dismiss him from his job. See: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm
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]
He became an alcoholic years after the translation.
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?
See answer to 18.
57. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Oh, my, you're fishing, aren't you. Absolutely, read it again but think it over for a while.
58. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Sure, why not? Get a life!
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."
It is the Holy Ghost's responsibility to reveal the word unto the reader, not yours or mine except in such cases as we are asked for an exposition. The passive voice of the Nutty Idiot's Version drives me nuts. Besides, the NIV translators know nothing of straitened bowels.
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?
Of course, there is nothing wrong with "correcting" the TR. Each revision "corrected" previous ones, didn't it? The Westcott and Hort revision corrected the errors in all Greek texts, past, present, and future, did it not? All in all, there are at least 24 "original" Greek texts in existence, and none claims to be the inerrant preserved words of God. So, which is the "original text"?
Furthermore, it is duplicitous to imply that the original 1611 did not have the singular "oath" in Mat. 14:9 and Mk. 6:26. The word, oath, is spelled "oathe" in the 1611 printing, so the possessive becomes "oathes." In the passages at issue the 1611 says "for the oathes sake," which is the singular possessive. If the plural was intended then the 1611 would have read, "for the oathes sakes," as it does in other places such as "their sakes" in Gen. 18:26.
The original printings did not use apostrophes at all, so it is a fiction to claim that some "publisher" (there are only two publishers, Cambridge and Oxford Universities, but there are many printers) misplaced an apostrophe when apostrophes were introduced into the English language. After all, king Herod made only one oath in the context, so to make it plural introduces an error. Also, every English translation from at least the Anglo Saxon (ca. AD 1000) through the Geneva and even the Douay agrees with the A.V.'s singular possessive.
Now, there is a reason why the Greek and some other languages use the plural, "oaths," but since the AV people are not allowed to use the Greek or Hebrew (see 61), I shall leave it to the you to figure out why the plural is used there. It is not rocket science to figure it out.
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!]
Do you know what worship means? I have doubts since you raise this question. Worship has degrees and is a contraction of worth-ship.
Have you ever heard an atheist call himself a "free thinker"? He assumes that since he is free to think in terms of "suppose there is no God" that a believer in God is not allowed to think, "suppose there is no God." In reality, believers are free to think either way, suppose there is a God, or suppose there is no God. If, however, you ask the atheist a question that supposes there is a God you will be told, "O, there is no God." You will have to emphasize, "I said suppose," before he will think and answer. You see, while he is free to think in terms of "suppose there is no God," he is not free to think, "suppose there is a God." So which is the real "free thinker"?
Like the atheist, you suppose that a "KJV-Onlyite" is not free to study Holy Writ in other languages as inspired writ. You, on the other hand, are not free to assume for a moment that the AV is the inerrant, preserved, infallible word of God.
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!]
The Spirit of God is an "it," the spirit of man is an it, an unclean spirit is a he except when within a man where it is subject to the man's spirit; in that case the unclean spirit is an it. The Holy Ghost in references direct and indirect is always a he. So, if you change the Spirit from an it to a he, you are calling it an unclean spirit. From where do you think the AV's translators took the genders: Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles?
63. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
No, but you raise an interesting point which remains whether sabbath is followed by "day" or not. Lev. 16:29-31 has a sabbath that is a feast day that does not fall on Friday. The same descriptive wording is connected to the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, which can similarly be counted as a sabbath. Now what do you suppose is meant when it says "in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" in Mat. 28:1?
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]
Since you never read the KJB except to fault it, you are, of course, ignorant of its use of the word meat as a general term for solid foods, be it the meat of an animal or meat of a plant as in "baked meats."
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."]
Yep, from time to time the pride of life would beset him and he would think he was greater than the Holy Ghost.
Then, too, Spurgeon also said this in The Sword and Trowel in 1888:
The act of altering the word of God is sinful. Only unholy minds would attempt it. The desire to alter the word of God is weakness. The authority, the power, the meaning, the terror of God's truth must be preserved in all their fullness if God's purposes are to be carried out. The ambition to alter the word of God is pharisaic. Our Lord reproved this spirit in scathing and unmistakable language. The craving to alter the word of God is accursed. This is the crime of the present day [Revised Version: 1881-1884]. The Lord preserve us from it.
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]."?
Same as question 65. It is God's way that matters, not the ways of men. People sometimes want to show how scholarly they are, and try to win the approval of men.
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]
I don't know if he was lying or not, but I suspect he was; I've caught Torrey in lies before. In any case, he is dead wrong.
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]
That's God's business, not ours. No committee ever dictated the canon, RCC "history" to the contrary. Bible believers are totally independent and absolute free thinkers.
69. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]
For the Greek, yes, because even the Greek-speaking church rejected it; for the Hebrew, no, the priests still adhere to it and preserve it.
Answers by Gerard Bouw, Ph.d. of Official Geocentricity Website