Response #6

 

For my next three installments I will be answering several of the questions in the section titled “QUESTIONS FOR KJV ONLY ADVOCATES”. I will not attempt to answer all 67 questions as this would take too much of my time, and besides, most of these “questions” have already been answered. If there is a particular question that you would like to see answered and I happen not to address it in my rebuttal just ask and I will do my best to answer it. I want to also point out that these are not honest questions at all. By this I mean that these ‘questions’ are not asked in order to get an honest answer but are only asked in hopes of tripping up unsuspecting saints that have not fully studied this subject. The questions are presented in a fashion so as to intimidate Bible Believers. I will demonstrate exactly what I’m saying by my answers. If John (and the site he copied the questions from) is sincerely looking for answers to these questions he will gladly acknowledge my answers and place my responses on his site. However, we all know this won’t happen, which clearly shows the intent of the questions. These are certainly not “unanswerable” questions by any stretch of the imagination. Every time I see this list of ‘questions’ I often wonder if all 67 ‘questions’ were answered would John or the author of these ‘questions’ then join us in our promotion and defense of Biblical Inspiration and Biblical Preservation or would they simply shake their heads and come up with 67 more ‘questions’. Something to think about isn’t it?

 

I will list the question first, then my answer followed by a question for John to answer. I feel it only fair that if I answer John’s questions that he answers my questions. I look forward to his answers.

 

 

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?

 

Allow me to start by saying that this is a completely erroneous question and is based upon false premises. I do not believe our KJB is “inspired” in the manner in which you stated it. By your question you demonstrate that you have no real understanding of the actual issue at hand. The central issue in this debate is not one of ‘inspiration’ but one of ‘preservation’. ‘Inspiration’ deals with the manner in which God gave to us the autographs and ‘Preservation’ has to do with the promises of God to preserve every one of his words throughout all generations. I believe that we both agree on the ‘inspiration’ of the original mss. Where we would vastly disagree is on the promises of ‘preservation’. I believe God has promised to preserve His words and I further believe He has kept his promises of preservation. I do not believe any of God’s words have been lost or have “fallen through the cracks” as one author put it. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christianity have a Bible that is 100% perfect. You, no doubt, will not agree with me on these points. You believe that all Bibles have errors and no such thing as a perfect Bible will ever exist. Can you give me any Bible verses (from ANY version) that support your stated position?

 

Our Authorized Version has not been “revised ten times” by any stretch of the imagination. By placing this ‘question’ on your website you prove your ignorance of the facts. Your ‘question’ also illustrates your motive – that being, purely to deceive your audience. You are trying to make it appear that our AV has undergone 10 major “revision” wherein the text was somehow radically altered like we see in today’s modern versions. This is not the case at all. It may be that you actually don’t know these things since you’ve not taken the time to study it for yourself so allow me to present you and my readers with the facts.

 

Though the AV is said to have undergone 4 (not 10!) ‘revisions’ these ‘revisions’ dealt only with orthography, calligraphy, paragraph markings and the correction of various printing errors. The text itself has remained unaltered. In 1888 Royal Printer, John R. Dore, after finishing an exhaustive study of English Bible and the ‘revisions’ of our AV concluded, “That pearl of great price, the English Bible of 1611, remained so long without alteration…” (Dore, Old Bibles, p.iii). Similarly, the American Bible Society stated, “The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text.” (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, 1852, p. 7). Since both of these comprehensive studies were done well after your supposed last ‘revision’ how can you explain their conclusions?

 

John, if you are in the habit of making up ‘revisions’ why didn’t you include as your 11th ‘revision’ that of 1885? Wasn’t that their stated purpose? Why not include it? Also, why not include the ‘revision’ of 1979? Isn’t the NKJV a ‘revision’ of our KJB? Why did it not make your top 10 ‘revisions’ of our KJB? They clearly state in their preface that, “the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document…” (Preface to the NKJV). Additionally, John, can you explain why these ‘scholars’ were not aware of your 10 ‘revisions’?? They plainly state that their work is supposed to be the “fifth revision”. The 4 other revisions were in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769.

 

Question: Can you document the 10 revisions mentioned in your question? Please give us the year of ‘revision’ and exactly what was ‘revised’.

 

2. How did people get saved before 1611?

 

Those that the Father draws are saved by grace through faith. This would be the same before 1611 as well as after 1611.

 

Question: By your question are you promoting some other formula for salvation? If so, how do you say that a person was saved prior to 1611?

 

3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?

 

This ‘question’, in my opinion, just shows the childishness of your position. Perhaps you could provide me with the name of any ‘KJV Only’ advocate that believes such a notion.

 

No doubt this ‘question’ was asked as an attempt to discredit our AV. I imagine your response would go something like this, “Well, since the apostle Paul didn’t use the KJV it must not be the inspired word of God”. Now, please allow me to take your initial thought a little further. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use a single one of the Greek (or Hebrew) mss. which are now extant? All of the known Greek mss. that we now have postdate the apostle Paul. And yet, these same copies are often cited and/or referred to by textual scholars as if they were the originals themselves.

 

Question: Does the fact that the apostle Paul didn’t actually use a single Greek ms. extant mean that these Greek mss. should not be trusted?

 

4. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

 

I suppose the first order of business would be for you to define “reject”. If you mean, by “reject”, that I refuse to acknowledge the Apocrypha and its historical value you would be wrong. If you mean, by “reject”, that I refuse to acknowledge the Apocrypha as inspired scripture you would be correct.

 

Do you accept the Apocrypha as inspired scripture? Your ‘question’ seems to imply that “the original 1611 version” did. Considering that they didn’t your question is aimed only at misleading your readers. The Apocrypha was placed between the two testaments in our KJB and separated from the actual inspired biblical text. The name ‘Apocrypha’ means “hidden or unknown/spurious” and the books that made up this section were clearly marked as “Apocrypha” at the top of every page. This clearly indicated that the translators of our KJB did not receive these books as inspired scripture but rather as ‘spurious’ books used only for their historical value. Sam Gipp stated the following regarding the KJB and the Apocrypha,

 

“That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very 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.”

 

Its always amusing to watch as guys like you seek to discredit our KJB for ‘containing’ the Apocrypha when they clearly ‘rejected’ it as spurious and then watch as you promote modern versions that are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Both of these highly revered codices contain the Apocrypha as part of the text. Sinaiticus also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as part of the inspired New Testament. Vaticanus lacks 1 & 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses.

 

Question: If having the Apocrypha separated from the inspired text is, as you suggest by your question, a blot against our KJB can you explain what the value of Aleph and B is since they contain the Apocrypha as part of the inspired text?

 

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!

 

I thought these were “Questions For KJV Only Advocates”. This is not a question but a statement.

 

Question: Can you prove your statement above, viz. that the entire NT was written in “Koine GREEK”? What actual evidence do you have for making this assertion?