Questions For Those Who Believe In Only The KJV
Send me your answers make reference to the numbered question you are going to answer.
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?
2. What Bible would you have used before 1611 if you lived back then?
3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?
4. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
5. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV believers 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 the ONLY inspired translation, why could God not repeat the process again in modern English language or in other languages of the world?
7. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV would be 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers who made and have made many errors in printing the text?
8. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing other possible translations? If the KJV translation was the inspired translation of God, there could be no alternates! Since there are hundreds of these possible translations in the margin of the KJV, does this mean God could not make up his mind which one was better to put into the translation?
9. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it, since the lives of some of them and some of their sources for translation, were not at all Godly or would be considered a Minister or a member of their Church or denomination?
10. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV? Why was the Apocrypha censored out if God preserved it also through their hands? Why has the opening Dedication to James I been censored out? And, why has the lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader" been censored out?
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 in showing that the translators were guessing at a word or words and palced them in italics so the reader could accept them or determine if a better word fit the case at hand?
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 old English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading to understand such words as "let, suffer, or hinder"; which in today's English often does not mean at all what they meant in 1611? These are only three of many other words?
14. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the Textus Receptus (TR) disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "worshiping a translation"?
15. 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 and not on ORIGINAL GREEK manuscripts at all, unless you want to say these copies of copies of copies of copies of copies were pure when the evidence now shows us that they were not?
16. 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 Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome was translated into English - a translation of a translation?
17. 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 they bristle (shiver) and shake.
18.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?
19.Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke"? The Catholic cannonizes Luke as a Saint and that becomes inspired by God to be in the KJV?
20. 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 no translation is the 100% pure unadulterated Word of God.
21. 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 in 1611 and today we know what the real names of these creatures are?
22. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mat 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI); and "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is a place of torment in the grave and a distinct hell which is the lake of fire into which sinners are thrown after the judgement: Rev 20:14).
23. 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?
24. 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 verse 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. This change was made to insert the trinity doctrine. Was this interpolation inspired by God?
25. How can anyone accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but in absolutely no other Greek manuscript known to man? So, to claim the KJV was translated only from the TR Greek is in itself a lie. 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"? Was this change inspired by God?
26. 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 written in Oxford about 1520 by a Catholic Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate and inserted the trinity again into the KJV. Once again, a text that did not come from the Greek TR at all. Was this interpolation inspired by God?
27. How can anyone 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"? Was this error inspired by God?
28. 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? Was this not the Word of God to them?
29. Were the KJV translators inspired by God when they admited themselves that other preceding translations were still to be considered "the word of God", they were just working on an English translation of those other versions and translations?
30. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
31. Are you aware that the Hebrew and Greek terxts themselves are not pure and errors have been found in both the Hebrew texts and the Septuagint Greek version? How then can underlying the KJV with the errors in these texts be considered inspired by God?
32. Do you believe that God inspired the English version of the KJV to correct the Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
33. Is ANY translation totally and fully "inspired" to be the one and only Word of God?
34. Is the KJV the only Bible we can call "scripture"? Is IT the only translation "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16], or was it not in existence when Paul write this to Timothy and he was speaking of another version or translation? Should we not then get that translation Paul was speaking about and use it even if we cannot read it?
35. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" 1611, or any of the KJV major revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850 (ten in all)?
36. In what language did Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:18 [not Peter Ruckman and others], teach that not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until all was fulfilled? If it is not the KJV, then what version is it that is the inspired Word of God, if only one version is the inspired Bible?
37. Where does the Bible teach that God will someday perfectly preserve His Word a non-Hebrew language in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
38. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed? How come God did not preserve them if he was intent on the actual inspired word as given to be preserved?
39. 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 when they did not? Did God inspire them to lie?
40. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? Will someone please tell me where I can find the Textus Receptus version of the Bible, the one the KJV translators supposedly used? Will someone please tell me whre I can purchase all of the ten versions of the KJV so I can determine myself how many places God was wrong in the first translation and needed to correct himself?
41. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God" since the KJV was not in existence? Did Martin Luther need the KJV to get a revelation of grace salvation and that the Papacy was in error on at least 95 doctrinal points?
42. What copy or translations of "the Word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely the infallible and inerrant Word? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist but they are not the KJV].
43. If the KJV is "God's only infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" at all in the other English versions before 1611?
44. Were the Englsih versions of Tyndale's , or Coverdale's , or Matthew's , or the Great , or the Geneva , absolutely infallible? Would God not inspire them to be error free as well as with the KJV or does God pick and choose which version he will preserve and "allow" the others to have errors?
45. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely 100% without error, could a lost sinner still find salvation and be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God" [Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 1:23]? The answer is YES!
46. The translators of the KJV disagreed with the Greek in several places and so changed the wording, allegedly correcting the Greek inspired originals. Did the Hebrew and Greek copies originally "breathed out by God" have errors that the KJV translators would need to correct or improve?
47. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inspired word of God to be the inerrant scripture "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
48. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inspired word of God to be the inerrant scripture "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
49. Since the ten 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 inspried of God and inerrant in all ten versions" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
50. 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]. Did God inspire a homosexual to give us the only inspired Word of God for the English people? Can homosexuals take credit for the KJV?
51. 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]
52. 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?
53. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
54. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
55. 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." If this can be translated to make sense to us in modern language terms would that be a sin?
56. 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?
57. 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 only advocate].
58. Is the Holy Ghost 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 only advocate].
59. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek].
60. 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], or did he mean "food"?
61. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrupter" 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"].
62. 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].
63. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?
64. Is it a sin to use different translations to try and understand all that could be translated from the manuscripts?
65. If God was so intent on preserving an error free text, why is it that there is no Hebrew text preserved that is error free?
66. If God was so intent on preserving a Greek text error free, why is it that there is no Greek text preserved that is error free?
67. If God wanted an error free English text, why is it that there was no error free Greek or Hebrew text from which to translate an error free version?
68. Please take careful notice: nothing in these questions is saying no one should use the KJV, or that the KJV is of the devil; what is being said is that the KJV is not the only version that Bible Believers should consult when doing Bible study on a word, a passage, or a subject. Gather as much information as you can and then let the Holy Ghost lead you into how a verse or a word should speak to your heart and to your soul.
69. I use the KJV nearly exclusively but I also consult other versions, other lexicons, other dictionaries, other versions of the Greek and Hebrew texts, and commentaries of scholars, in my studies. Anything that conflicts with the Apostolic teachings of Jesus in faith, practice, or doctrine, is rejected.
70. God is not the author of confusion. He wants us to know his Word, and so, when there is confusion or doubt, we always have the Holy Ghost to lead and guide us into all righteousness. When the Catholics (Greek and Roman) had the Bible locked up with chains and there were few copies available for the common people, these faithful, without actual Bibles for centuries, trusted in Jesus Messiah for salvation and fulfilled Acts 2:38 by grace through faith as was delivered to them by word of mouth. Man may make a mistake but the Holy Ghost will make no mistakes. If they once again take our Bibles, that written within our hearts will become the testimony of the Lord. And the Lord will use these to continue to reach a lost and dying world. When Bibles were allowed and translated in their languages, these were a confirmation that Acts 2:38 as preached without Bibles for centuries was still accurate.
Back to Messianic Studies
Send answers to questions or to make a complaint