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?
I will first answer regarding your insinuation that our KJB is not a “modern English language” Bible. It may interest (and enlighten) you to know that Old English is dated from 450 AD-1100 AD. Middle English is dated from 1100 AD-1500 AD. Modern English is dated 1500 AD-present. Wikipedia splits Modern English up into two parts, viz. Early Modern English 1500 AD-1650 AD; Modern English 1650 AD-present. As you can easily see our KJB (1611) falls well within the ‘Modern English’ era. So, as before, we see that your charge against our KJB is unfounded and patently false. Wikipedia had an interesting quote under the heading “Modern English” I thought I would share with you.
“Despite some differences in vocabulary, material from the early 17th century, such as the works of William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, is considered to be in Modern English, or more specifically, they are referred to as Early Modern English, and most people who are fluent in the English of the early 21st century believe they can read these books with little difficulty.” (Wikipedia, see “Modern English”)
Clearly Wikipedia doesn’t have an axe to grind, as you do, so they state the facts objectively. Our King James Bible is written in Modern English and can be read “with little difficulty”. Why do you seek to distort the facts with your misleading question above? So, one could safely ask you, if God has given us an inspired Bible ‘in modern English language’ why are you demanding that He needs to do it AGAIN? If you have not acknowledged the one that He HAS given you (in modern English language) why should we believe that you would acknowledge a different Bible as the “inspired” word of God? The truth is that you wouldn’t accept it, or any Bible, as an “inspired translation”.
Just for reference sake here is a passage of scripture from an Old English Bible. Taken from “The Anglo-Saxon Version”:
“On fruman waes Word, and thaet Word waes mid Gode, and God waes thaet Word. Thaet waes on fruman mid Gode. Ealle think waeron deworhte thurh hyne; and nam thing naes geworht butan him. Thaet waes lif the on him geworht waes, and thaet lif waes manna leoht.” (John 1:1-4)
And, yes, every word is spelled correctly. That is an Old English Bible; our KJB is a modern English Bible.
The last portion of your question is a question I receive quite often. As always, it is not from an honest heart but typically from someone that is only seeking to obfuscate. In particular I’m talking about your reference to an “inspired” translation in “other languages of the world”. You’re not concerned with “other languages of the world”. Additionally, you wouldn’t acknowledge that God had preserved His inspired words in another translation in ANY language. Your only purpose here is to seek to cast a stumbling block in front of one that actually believes his/her Bible. Not true you say? Then please explain how your question #33 relates to the question before us about foreign language Bibles. In your question #33 you clearly indicate that you don’t believe “ANY” translation can be the inspired word of God. You state, “Is ANY translation totally and fully "inspired" to be the one and only Word of God?” Do you see how you prove my point?
At any rate, I will answer your fake concern in the manner in which I always answer. Who is to say that God hasn’t already done this? I’m not in the habit of limiting God as you and all of modern scholarship seems to enjoy doing. You don’t believe God can preserve His inspired words in “ANY translation” whereas I believe God can, and has, preserved His words for this generation. It very well may be that God has preserved His words in “other languages of the world”. I personally don’t know all the languages of the world so I can’t positively say that He hasn’t already done what you are asking or that He won’t choose to do so in the future. I believe it is God’s words and He can do with them what He pleases in whatever language He is pleased to use. You, on the other hand, seek only to limit God by saying that He can’t preserve His own words in “ANY translation”. If He decides to use “other languages of the world” I’m positive He will bear witness to what He has done just as He has our King James Bible for the last 400 years. As far as English translations go, although I believe that God could possibly watch over and guide another group of translators like He did the translators of our KJB I readily admit that given the degradation of modern textual criticism, the exaltation of such corrupt mss. as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and the lateness of the hour in which we live that another God-guided perfectly preserved translation seems highly unlikely.
We must also guide against demanding something of God that
He has never promised. God never promised to preserve His words in ‘every’
language of the world. Neither has He promised that He would give His preserved
word to ‘every’ language of the world. God has only promised that He would in
fact keep or preserve His word. Consider what God says in Psalms 147, “He
showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto
Question: If our KJB is not the inspired word of God in English then which Bible do you suggest is? Is there a foreign language that you recommend as the inspired word of God? If so, which one?
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?
Why would God need to do this? There is nothing in the promise of Preservation that demands such. If what you are suggesting was essential then we would have to argue that every ancient ms. be copied to 100% perfection. Since none of the ancient mss. are ‘100% error free’ of copyist errors does this mean that we don’t have the words of God? Of course it doesn’t. The promise of God was to preserve every one of His words. We have the preserved words of God without insisting that every single printer produce our KJB without printing errors.
Not to long ago I was sitting as a certain preacher read his text from our KJB. Although he didn’t realize it he skipped 2 words while reading his text. Does the fact that he skipped these words mean that the text is in ‘error’? If what you are asserting is true then the answer would be ‘yes’. However, we know that this is not correct. Likewise, just because a printer makes a mistake in printing doesn’t mean that the text of our Bible is in error.
Question: Without using circular reasoning, can you prove that the ‘original’ autographs were inspired and ‘100% error free’?
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?
Allow me to start this answer by saying that I do not promote nor defend the words of the translators. I do not consider their Preface, marginal notes or section titled ‘The Translators to the Reader’ to be divine scripture at all. It is the TEXT of our KJB that I promote and defend. This being said, the translators actually addressed the issue you raise in The Translators to the Reader.
“Some peraduenture would hue no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuersies by that shew of vncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their iudgmet not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoeuer things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie. Yet for all that it canot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their euery-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre vp our deuotion to craue the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and neuer scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, bieng to seeke in many things our selues, it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne saluation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseem vs then confidence, and if we will resolue, to resolue vpon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet vpon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to striue about those things that are vncertaine. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be neuer found there but once, (hauing neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there by many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselues are so diuided among themselues for iudgement, that they may seeme to haue defined this or that, rather because they would say somthing, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize vpon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are euident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in the iudgment of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded.”
If you have issue with particular examples you should’ve included them in your question. This way we could discuss them. Nonetheless, your question is once again meant only to mislead and distort the facts. I do not defend the marginal notes as inspired by God nor do I believe that they are part of the inspired text.
Question: Can you explain how the use of marginal notes impacts the text itself?
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?
As I stated earlier, I do not believe that the translators were “inspired of God” as you state. I do, however, believe that they were led by God in their translational work. Even if these men were “inspired of God” would they of necessity have to know it? Can you produce me with any quotes from any of the Biblical writers that indicated that they knew that they were “inspired of God”? I can produce a few quotes where it would seem that the Biblical writer was actually asserting just the exact opposite. Does this mean that he was not “inspired by God”?
I am also reminded of the words of John the Baptist and the words of Jesus. One day John was asked “What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.” On another day Jesus declared, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.” Does the fact that John not only didn’t know he was Elias but additionally denied being Elias change the fact that he was in fact ‘Elias’ as Jesus said? Does the fact that none of the Biblical writers boasted about being ‘inspired’ mean that they weren’t inspired?
Of the task before them the translators stated, “Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one princiall good one.” They concluded, “wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”
Question: Do you know of any translation in history that has been blessed by God as greatly as our King James Bible? Do you know of any Bible that has yielded as much fruit for so great a time as our KJB has? If God didn’t have His hand in producing such a Bible who do you say did?
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?
Here you show your ignorance in, 1) not understanding the real issue at hand and, 2) not knowing the facts of the matter. First, the real issue here is that of inspiration and preservation not whether marginal notes, Dedications, Prefaces and the Apocrypha can be found in a particular translation. In fact, all these things have absolutely nothing to do with the actual text of our AV. We, as Bible Believers, have never promoted the marginal notes, Apocrypha, Dedication or the words of the Translators. What we insist upon is the actual words of scripture; these, we believe, are what God has inspired and promised to preserve. We do not adhere to ‘the message only’ philosophy but believe that the actual w-o-r-d-s themselves must be preserved. So, your questions have no relevance whatsoever when it comes to the words of God.
Second, you demonstrate that either a) you don’t know the facts or b) you are purposely trying to mislead your readers (again). An individual can easily purchase a KJB with all the above in it. I have 2 here on my desk! So, once again we see that your question has no relevance at all.
Question: Do you believe that marginal notes, introductory comments and dedications are inspired by God? If not, please explain what bearing your questions above have on the Bible translation issue.
I trust John will answer my questions just as I’ve taken the time to answer his. In my next section I will address a few randomly selected questions from the rest of John’s questions list.