Answers to “70 Questions For King James Only Advocates”


These questions are found at the Church of Christ website entitled  These people are dangerous heretics that teach the damnable doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.  There are other teachings espoused on this website that a Bible Believer needs to be wary of.  The following series of questions come from an article on the site called “questions for KJV-only advocates” which is supposedly written by a man named Steve Rudd.  Steve Rudd’s questions are numbered and in bold.  He advocates no other alternative from the King James Only position.  He is too foolish to know the difference between the two separate positions of King James Only and Textus Receptus Only.  The author of these answers writes from the position of King James Only.

Edit: sorry that the typesetting is off.  Copy/Paste never works like it should…


  • Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.


      1. None are “revisions”.  They corrected spelling and grammar issues and none of them contradict.  This is completely unlike the modern versions which contradict hundreds of times.  Answer: all of them.  But not the “New” King James Version.


  • What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.


      1. This is grossly misrepresenting our position.  I don’t worship the King James Bible.  I worship the God who preserved it and gave it by inspiration (II Tim 3:15,16).  Also, there were Bibles before 1611, they just weren’t PURIFIED as the requirements of Psalm 12:6,7 say that God’s words will be. Before I answer, I would like to throw the question back to the writer: “What do you recommend to people AFTER 1611?”  I know he has no answer.  To answer the perverted question, I would have recommended one of the not-yet-purified English and foreign language Bibles.  Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, and the Bishop’s Bible were part of the purification process.  So were the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin (old Itala), Gothic (of Ulfilas), and German (Luther) Bibles.  


  • Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.


      1. If this is a question, then the answer is Yes. I want to know this, “Does Steve Rudd know that no one THINKS that Paul used the KJV?”


  • Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?


      1. I reject them for the reasons that the King James translators themselves rejected the apocrypha.  These reasons are public knowledge. They were part of the Bible as a historical note, just like the Dedicatory.  None of the translators believed the Apocrypha to be inspired. I ask, “Does Steve Rudd know that the Greek texts that form the basis of the modern versions both INCLUDE the apocrypha?”  I am referencing Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus.  


  • If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:


      1. I don’t see how that disqualifies them.  So they thought that there was a cross reference to the apocrypha.  I have never met anyone who believed that the marginal references were inspired.  Paul referenced heathen poets in Acts 17 and Titus 1.  That does not mean the poets were inspired and it does not mean Paul was NOT inspired.  


  • 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!


      1. I see no where in scripture where God’s revelation is limited to Koine Greek.  What about the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament?  There is no question so I cannot answer anything, but I would wonder if Steve Rudd knows that no one speaks Koine Greek today.  So to get a translation of the Greek Bibles, a man has to go back to the Greek of the philosophers and poets (Attic for example).  No one knows how different these two dialects may have been.   


  • If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?


      1. King James believers argue about this question and there are no definite answers in scripture.  Again I ask, “Why do you care, Steve Rudd?  You don’t think any language has inspired scripture.”  The fact is that the King James is inspired Scripture and the final authority.  I suppose the best answer is that, if God inspired scripture in every language there would be multiple Final Authorities and that would be a contradiction of terms.


  • If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?


      1. Why would you suppose that he would?  If only the original writings were inspired, did those originals have ANY misspellings or grammar mistakes?  How would you know?  We don’t have originals.  Every Greek text has grammatical errors in it.  These are called anacoluthon. Another questions would be: how far would you take this?  Were there any water marks or smudges on the originals?  The KJV-only position is that the book I have in my hands is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:15,16).  Steve Rudd cannot provide a viable alternative.


  • 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!


      1. They had no clue that they were writing a book that would be inspired.  Neither did Paul. (I Cor 7:12).  Clearly, you don’t have to know that your writings will be inspired for them to be inspired.  God did not use the marginal notes just as He did not use the apocrypha.  Most modern KJV Bibles do not include either of them.


  • If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?


      1. Paul did not either(I Cor 7:12).  Steve Rudd cannot prove that ALL the writers of scripture did not know they were inspired.  This is a false requirement.


  • 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.”?


      1. They were not given by inspiration and they can be removed based on what the printer desires.  The Scriptures are given by inspiration.  These additional parts are not.  


  • 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?


      1. They can’t both be right.  That would mean there are 2 final authorities.  God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor 14:33)  Why would you assume that the TR Greek is right and the KJV English is wrong?  Our position is based on fruit. (Matt 7:20)  Over the past 400 years, millions have been won to Christ with the KJV.   Who has been won by the TR Greek in the last 2000 years?  Not half that.  There are other arguments that point to the King James, but the “fruit argument” is quite solid.  


  • If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?


      1. Word-for-word inspiration is not the same as word-for-word translation.  The second is impossible.  Steve Rudd knows that the italics were put in by the translators to show that the word was not in their Greek text.  It demonstrates their honesty.  On the reverse, the translators of modern versions add words, but don’t have the honesty to show it by putting the additions in italics.  The King James translators put the words in italics and THEN God inspired their text.


  • 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?


      1. Most days of reading my Bible, I do NOT have to consult a dictionary.  I am not an exception.  The King James takes some getting used to, but the reader quickly sees that 99+% of the time, the definition of the “archaic” words is clear in the context.


  • 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?


      1. Does Steve Rudd not know the difference between the truth and a defense of the truth?  The first is a work of God and the second is a work of man.  Defenses of the truth are copyrighted so the writer can get a wage for his work (Luke 10:7).  The King James Bible is a work of God.  
      2. Of course we know that eventually all modern versions will lose their copyright, but there is something sinister when I have to pay someone to use their material when they claim that they are putting out God’s truth.


  • 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)


      1. It’s not ridiculous.  The TR Greek is a part of the purification process.  By definition, it is not as pure as the finished product.  This is not hard to understand.  Again, I don’t worship the KJV, I worship the God who gave it by inspiration.  To claim otherwise, is a lie.  


  • 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?


      1. Is there any proof of this?  The line of transmission that the TR Greek is a part of, has the backing of literally 1000s of manuscripts.  The changes of the modern versions are based on old manuscripts that have the backing of only a couple of manuscripts.  1000s versus a couple?  I take the 1000s.  Steve Rudd needs to read up on his manuscript evidence.


  • 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?


      1. The TR Greek is not error free.  You gave a good example of why it is not.  Thank you.  The King James Bible has been purified and made better than the TR Greek.  That is the KJV only position.


  • 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.)


      1. Greek dictionaries are the work of men.  The writers of these books are NOT inspired.  We can use tremble as an example.  It could mean your definition or it could just mean tremble.  This makes me wonder, “Demons have skin?”  Also, the KJV is the only Bible that makes a good distinction between “phileo” and “agape” in I Cor 13, which all the new versions revert back to “love.”  The KJV translators knew all about the subtle shades of meaning of the Greek words for “love” and translated accordingly.  But Steve Rudd wouldn’t know that, he hasn’t looked into it.  


  • 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.)


      1. Steve Rudd needs to ask this question to someone who believes that the chapter headings are inspired.  This questioning of “Why would God…” is unproductive.   The answer is almost always, “Because he just did or didn’t.”  He is also incorrect about the Song of Solomon not being a type of Christ and the Church.  I’d like to see where that doesn’t fit.  


  • 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”?


      1. All Christians are saints.  See the introduction to just about every one of Paul’s epistles.  It is not wrong to call Luke, Saint Luke.  To call Luke, Saint Luke, is to distinguish him from the other men named Luke that have existed throughout church history.  The KJV translators watched their fellow Protestants burnt at the stakes by Catholics.  Few would be dumb enough to think that these men would by influenced by Catholic doctrine.  Apparently, Steve Rudd is dumb enough.  Their doctrine was far from pure, but it was closer to the truth than water dogs like Steve Rudd.


  • 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)


      1. This changes nothing.  Does Steve Rudd know that Muslims believe the same thing as he does about Bible translations?  Both believe there is no inspired translation of the Bible on earth today.  Maybe he does or maybe he doesn’t, but it doesn’t change much.  Also, there are MANY other reasons to not believe the Book of Mormon other than their printing errors.


  • 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?


      1. The modern versions do not have the same kind of mistakes.  They are Catholic translations that take away truth from EVERY correct doctrine of the scriptures.  


  • 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?


      1. Thank you for assuming that you are right as you ask the question.  There is no proof that those creatures are not real creatures.  Again, Steve Rudd does NOT know the “real name of these creatures.”  He assumes he does. Remember Satyr and Cockatrice are devilish animals that zoologists have no access to.  


  • 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).


      1. It is wrong to assume that this is an error.  “To see” and “to visualize” could both be translated by the same word in other languages.  Nevertheless, these distinctions are clear in the English.  The devil is singular.  Devils are plural.  By not translating as “demons”, the King James gives the moral nature of the beings.  In ancient Greek, “demons” could be good or bad.  No one thinks “Devils” are good, except Satanists.  Again, Rev 20 is referring to the “Lake of Fire” not just hell.  They are two distinct places in the KJV.


  • 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 (Rudd spelled this wrong) none exist?


      1. The context is always different so the translation will always be different.  These are not all quotations of Gen 15:6.  That is a lie.  No one believes that there are 4 different things going on in those verses.  Steve Rudd is creating distinctions “where” none exist.


  • 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.)


      1. Steve Rudd demonstrates his limited understanding of the Greek and Hebrew languages  in this question.  Greek articles are impossible to have a consistent rule for translating into English.  The Greek NT is filled with, literally rendered, “the Jesus the Christ.”  That would look dumb in English.  So their rule was to go by the context.  Every translation does the same thing.  His example is easily proven to be an error, not in the KJV, but in his understanding of doctrine.  That angel in the fire of Dan 3 was Jesus Christ himself, who is called throughout the Bible, “the Angel of the Lord” (Acts 27:23).  “A” son of God could be lots of different things.


  • 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”?


      1. The TR is not perfect and error free.  Now Steve Rudd is failing to differentiate between KJV-only and TR-only.  He is demonstrating the purification process of Psalm 12:6,7 that resulted in the King James Bible.


  • 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)


      1. Steve Rudd is either lying or grossly uninformed of manuscript evidence.  Probably, he is both.  He needs to study the gender of the pronouns in the verse and see that they do not work without the masculine pronouns that are omitted.  To omit those words leaves a grammatical error in the text.  Beyond that, the words are found in manuscript 61, 88 and the old Latin and Old Syrian.  It is quoted by Cyprian (250 AD), Clarus and Priscillian (385 AD), Cassiodorus (500 AD), Athanasius (350 AD), and Tertullian (200 AD).


  • 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”?


      1. This “error” is actually all through the OT.  It is strange that Steve Rudd could only find it once.  Basically, the translators were transliterating the word and then adding the “s” to show people who don’t speak Hebrew, that the word is plural.  This is called, “making it easier to understand”.  It still went over Steve Rudd’s head.


  • 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?


      1. What is necessary is to find something that God inspired (II Tim 3:16).  He clearly inspired the King James.  There are many reasons why and the main reason is the fruit of the King James (Matt 7:20).  Very few people have gotten saved with other versions and the Geneva has had more than 400 years to bear fruit.  It has not.  The Geneva Bible is part of the purification process for the King James.  Besides, who is Steve Rudd to say that KJV only “limits” the word of God.  He believes that the word of God is ONLY in some lost manuscripts that are in a language no one can read.  Who is really “limiting”?  


  • Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the very meanest [poorest] translation” is still “the word of God”?


      1. “Liars” implies that it was deliberate.  Those great men did not know what God was going to do with Bible translations.  Men today, who have looked into the issue, have no such excuse.  


  • Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are “the word of God”?


      1. In a general sense, yes.  But are they the exact words of God, no.  Are they given by inspiration, no.  


  • Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can “correct” the English?


      1. No.


  • Do you believe that the English of the KJV “corrects” its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?


      1. Yes.


  • Is ANY translation “inspired”?  Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?


      1. Yes.  Everyone who believes in the Bible, in a general sense, believes that.  The NT quotes the OT Hebrew in Greek.  That is a translation.   No one denies that those are “inspired translations” in Greek.  When Moses and Pharaoh spoke to each other in Exodus, did they speak in Hebrew or Egyptian?  Surely they spoke in Egyptian.  But God inspired a translation into Hebrew for the OT.  This is not a radical idea.


  • Is the KJV “scripture” ? Is IT “given by inspiration of God”?  [2 Tim. 3:16]


      1. Yes


  • 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?


      1. Every King James Bible ever published was given by inspiration of God at whatever date it was printed. Unless is had the word “New” in front of it.  


  • 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?


      1. It doesn’t say.  You can imply Hebrew.  But you could also imply English.  It is not clear.


  • Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?


      1. Nowhere.  This whole thing was based on the choices that men have made in history.  England accepted the Bible (in a general sense) and God took the empire around the world.  That is the language that God chose to put his final purification.  Counter question:  Where does it say in the OT that God would choose Greek for the NT?  Nowhere.  But it happened.  Same with the KJV English.


  • Did God lose the words of the originals when the “autographs” were destroyed?


      1. No.  This question would be better asked to Steve Rudd.  He thinks that they were.  In the purification process, is the silver lost when it is refined?  No, it’s the same with the Bible.


  • 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?


      1. They clearly meant the original Greek language, not the original Greek text.


  • Was “the original Greek” lost after 1611?


      1. The text of it was probably look around 150 AD.


  • Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without “the word of God”?


      1. No.  But they didn’t have the words of God that were purified seven times.  That came in 1611.  


  • 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].


      1. None.  They needed to be purified. (Psalm 12:6,7)


  • 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?


      1. Yes, but it wasn’t purified.  


  • Was Tyndale’s [1525], or Coverdale’s [1535], or Matthew’s [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?


      1. No, and I’ve said why many times now.


  • 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]


      1. I don’t see how this question relates to the issue at hand.  The KJV is absolutely inerrant.  But a man could get saved without the King James Bible in front of him, it happens all the time.  


  • If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” need correction or improvement?


      1. Yes.  That’s what Psalm 12:6,7 says.


  • 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”?


      1. No, This has nothing to do with the King James Bible, it is a reference to the preaching of the prophets.  Notice that verse says “spake” not wrote.  I believe God helped them write and then inspired what they wrote.  Steve Rudd needs a lesson on logic.


  • 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?


      1. Both. Matt 23:34


  • Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture – “sin” [Cambridge KJV’s] or “sins” [Oxford KJV’s] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?


      1. Both.  Matt 23:34


  • Who publishes the “inerrant KJV”?


      1. Lots of people.  I recommend Local Church Bible Publishers.


  • 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?


      1. All those were given by inspiration of God.  If there was a printer’s error, which happens even now, then they changed it.


  • 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]


      1. King James was not a homosexual.  This is the claim of Anthony Weldon and was written 25 years after his death.  I claim that Anthony Weldon was a Sodomite.  Who cares what I claim and who cares what Weldon claims?  There is no proof, so I accept the clear record of history that King James was NOT a sodomite and was a loving husband to his wife.


  • 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]


      1. Yes, sinlessness is not a requirement to doing something for God. (Rom 11:29)  Peter struggled his whole life to accept God’s dealings with Gentiles.  David was an adulterer and murderer.  Both were used of God to write scripture.


  • 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?


      1. Yes.  But anyone who reads the King James knows that it isn’t “gay friendly”.  This is no reason to read an NIV instead.  Also, most people in 2015 know that the word “gay” used to mean “happy or nice or showy”.  


  • Did dead people “wake up” in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?


      1. No, it is clear in the context that not everyone in the camp died.  The ones who didn’t die woke up.


  • Was “Baptist” John’s last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?


      1. No.


  • 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.”


      1. It makes some sense to me.  Which Bible is clearer is not the only factor to consider in the issue at hand. Job 6:6 in the RSV refers to the “slime of the purslane” but the KJV refers to the “white of an egg.”  The KJV is clearly easier to understand.  Just because the RSV is hard to understand doesn’t necessarily mean that the RSV is to be rejected.  There are many other reasons to reject the RSV.  


  • 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?


      1. Yes.  I don’t know what the big deal is.  There are errors in the TR and there are no errors in the KJV.


  • 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!]


      1. Yes.  I Chron 29:20 shows that a man can get worship if he’s standing close to God when God is worshipped.  It’s a strange doctrine, but that’s what the text says.  Rev 3:9 figures into the equation also.  


  • 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!]


      1. Yes.  The pronoun for the Holy Spirit can be masculine or neuter.


  • Does Luke 23:56 support a “Friday” crucifixion in the KJV?    [No “day” here in Greek]


      1. No.  They rested on the Sabbath of Passover.  Not regular Saturday.


  • 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]


      1. Yes.  I don’t understand the reason for the question.  It clearly says meat.


  • 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.”]


      1. Yes.  Great men are not always wise.


  • 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].”?


      1. Yes.  On that point they are Bible correctors.


  • 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]


      1. Yes.  All men are liars.


  • 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]


      1. It’s not a good way to describe it, but yes.


  • Did God supernaturally “move His Word from the original languages to English” in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?  [same page above]


    1. It’s a strange way to put it, but yes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s