KJV   Q & A

KJV  Q & A

Actual Questions from Modern Version Advocates

1. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"?

No. Did you like that answer ? Ok, the answer is No, because you - obviously – can call anything the "Word of God". You can have the books of Mickey Mouse and call those the Word of God. [that would be a false statement, though].

But what makes the claim accurate is to call the Correct Bible the "Word of God". What are the Bibles that are Not the Word of God ?

Bibles that are known and documented to have been translated by those who:

1) are occultists

2) hate & despise sound Biblical Doctrine and/or

3) are translating from false manuscripts...will Not have any product or version that can be accurately characterized as the "Word of God".

2. Why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation?

The question is misplaced. Why is it that when we have a version that we know is accurate and reliable, that modern men feel compelled to go and find anything else and want "Whatever else they have found" to also now bear the characterization of the "Word of God" ? If God gives us his gospel, which we know is accurate and reliable, then we should be learning to read it, memorize it, and accept its teachings.

3. Where was God prior to 1611?

We actually would like to have thought that you would already have known this. God was in Heaven ruling from above – before 1611, in the same way that He is now, sovereignly.

4. Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611?

In his Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts, that the KJV translators would acquire and be able to use for their solid and accurate work, the King James Version.

5. Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?

Yes, and most KJVOs understand and accept this. The Geneva Bible was produced by the same people who produced the Textus Receptus in the 1500s. Let’s keep in mind one of the reasons WHY the Pilgrims used the Geneva Bible: The Pilgrims had left Holland before the KJV was complete. The KJV was started 1603/1604, but it was not complete until 1611. 

By then, the Pilgrims were already in Holland, and had their Bibles with them, which were Geneva Bibles. Simply take a look at the works and sermons of the pastor of the Pilgrims, John Robinson, and read his Godly sermons. (Wouldn’t it be nice to see preachers with the wisdom, clarity and godliness to preach as Pastor Robinson did ?).

6. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?

Yes, and if you did as well, you would be using the Greek and Hebrew Texts that were used for the KJV and all other Bibles prior to that time as well (with the exception of the textual corruptions of the Catholic Church and Eusebius & Jerome)

7. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?

There is no need. The KJV is the accurate representation of the Greek and Hebrew. Even those who advocate Modern Versions agree that the KJV is an excellent version. That is why – each month – those who know that the KJV is the right text in English continue to grow in numbers, because they already know that the KJV is a very good version, and certainly "as good" as any modern version. All we have to do is share the truth: show them who the translators of the Modern Versions were, how certain verses are completely omitted, and how Modern Version translators did not seek God nor Truth in their translations.

8. Is the KJV "scripture"? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]

Any accurate translation of the Word of God is "scripture". Any accurate translation of the Word of God is – itself – "given by inspiration of God".

Why is it that Modern Version advocates think that if words are not specifically Hebrew or Greek, that the truth and the accuracy of them must automatically depart from those words – translated into another language ? There is simply no basis for this assertion.

Its as if Modern Version advocates want to force KJV advocates to "admit" that the Holy Spirit somehow does not work, and that God is no longer sovereign – If He is not operating in English.

Modern Versions often use arguments to limit the power of God. KJV advocates know that the Lord operates in English as He does in His own sovereignty in other languages as well. And KJV advocates praise God for this.

But that does not take away – from the fact that Modern Versions are strong departures from the Greek and the Hebrew and make no pretense to even be reconciled to the historic Bible Manuscripts used by the Christian Church for 2000 years.

The issue is Not that KJV advocates do not believe that God cannot use Hebrew or Ancient (Koine) Greek, but rather that Modern Version translators have no intention of using solid Biblical Ancient Manuscripts, and every intention of departing from them.

9. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" ?

The Short answer is when the Translators were doing the work of translation.

Any Bible that: accurately represents and speaks the Word of God, and conveys the Words of God in the most accurate way possible, accomplished by Linguists who are saved and have the Holy Spirit inside of them, and that reconciles with the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Version...is THE Word of God.

10. In what language did Jesus Christ teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

The language in which He wrote it, and the languages that accurately represent to other nations and tongues – what are in the original autographs. Let’s take a quick look at what that verse actually says:

Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

All that this verse says is that God is in control and His word – and his words – will be fulfilled. The reference to "one jot or one tittle" refers to the importance that Hebrew scribes accorded to the words of the Bible, something that is not nearly prevalent enough with Modern Version defenders.

Let’s finish this point and make it clear: There is a Bible in Heaven. God says that His Word – Which is the Bible – will NEVER pass away. Those words in the Bible are Eternal. They will be with us forever, in Heaven, and with God.

The Biblical texts that aligns with the Bible in Heaven – That is the Word of God. And that text is to be found in the King James Version in English, and in the Hebrew and Greek Texts that the KJV is translated from, and also found in all of the other Bibles that have that text also. 

(But since the Modern Versions do not use the historic Greek Texts used for the Bible, then this means that they – by definition and by the choice of their translators - would NOT correspond to the Word of God, which is the King James Version).

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

This kind of question is hard to take seriously, because it reveals the degree of lack of knowledge that some Modern Version seem to have. Do Modern Version advocates seriously believe that KJV advocates are saying that no versions of the Bible existed before the KJV ?

That is NOT what KJV advocates believe. That is simply Modern-Version advocate propaganda, information designed to mislead others concerning what KJV advocates are actually saying.

The Bible was preserved before the King James, and the King James faithfully follows in that tradition, which is historically grounded in Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts that date back to the time of the Early Church.

12. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?

No, they were faithfully copied by others – who copied them and sent them faithfully onto other churches, which in turn did the same thing. But Modern Versions have departed from these manuscripts, which is why KJV advocates will proclaim to the world that Modern Versions are corrupt.

13. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"?

Not at all. That is exactly what KJV advocates maintain: that the KJV was translated from accurate and original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and that this was done sovereignly under the control of the Holy Spirit.

KJV attackers like to say that the KJV translators relied on too few manuscripts. It would not matter if all they had was ONE manuscript. If the manuscripts that they use were and are the accurate ones, then the result will be an accurate translation.

On the other hand, KJV advocates don’t want to entirely ignore the manuscript record, and that is why they point out that 98% of the Bible manuscripts Agree with the Greek Textus Receptus and DISAGREE with the Greek Text invented by Westcott & Hort in order to subvert and change the Modern Versions.

14. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?

No, it was available after 1611, and copies of it were easily available in the copies of the Greek Textus Receptus of Elzevier and Stephens. These copies were sold in the U.S. and in Europe, and were used to teach from, and were especially used in Seminaries.

As long as those Greek New Testaments were used [along with the KJV], Christian theology was sound (99% of the time), and the Christian Church was both strong and historically connected. Further, Pastors would often talk about Christian History, the Early Church Fathers, and the heroes of the Protestant Reformation, in their church sermons.

Then - starting in 1881, Westcott and Hort finally succeeded in placing their corrupt Greek Text in front of the Public with the Help of Cambridge University and Oxford, and 100,000 copies were sold in a very short time. That began the steady attack on the Greek Textus Receptus, that was begun by earlier Textual Critics. Finally, for the first time, Textual critics had a Bible edition that was both 1) corrupted and 2) Protestant-approved.

Professors in Seminaries had been trained in German Textual Criticism. They took these new methods of attacking the Bible, and combined those methods with the new Greek Text of Westcott & Hort to falsely say that the historic Greek Textus Receptus – had been corrupted.

Young Seminary students (future pastors) accepted their deceptions, which are still repeated to this day. In the meantime, it was in 1910 that the Foreign & British Missionary Bible Society finally agreed to STOP using the Historic Textus Receptus, and instead use the Greek Text of Nestle.

Nestle was an enemy of the Protestant Reformation, and an ally of Westcott & Hort. In fact, his own version (Version of Nestle – 1898) specifically states that its source is the

Greek [corrupted] text of Westcott and Hort (in addition to the corrupted text of Codex Sinaiticus), which did not exist before its invention by Westcott & Hort.

15. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1688) take place without "the word of God"?

NO ! In fact, it took place because the Catholic Church was insisting on Not giving people the Word of God, as much as possible. Back then, the Roman Catholic Church made it a crime punisheable by death, to own a copy of the Bible (or the writings of Luther or Calvin) not translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Knowing and realizing that the Roman Catholic Church had corrupted the Bible – and then used this to justify unBiblical doctrines and rituals, the Protestant Reformers protested and began learning as much Greek and Hebrew possible, and they began also to

teach as many common people how to read (something that the Roman Catholic Church did not want the people to know).

The Protestant Reformers faced many Textual Critics in their own day. Most of those textual critics were following the same line: trying to get common people to be misled into agreement with the top leaders and Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church and their corrupted Bibles.

But the attacks were the same as those of today:

You can’t speak, you’re not authorized

You don’t know as much as we do

You don’t have credentials we approve of

You don’t have our permission to think for yourself

One of our Priests - [Textual Critics] - has not given you our forgiveness for believing you can find God without us.

Unless enforced by the inquisition, they were mostly ignored before, and they will be ignored these days – for the same reasons. Most Textual Critics are Bible attackers who are trying to get people to NOT rely on the Bible, as being the reliable Word of God.

During the Reformation, Luther began his own translation of the Bible into German, and Calvin began translation projects of the Bible into English, French and Italian (and worked with Spanish translators also). The versions that were commissioned by Calvin

(through his co-worker Beza) ARE the GENEVA Bible. The Geneva Bible is based on the Textus Receptus. The translation of Luther is also based on the Textus Receptus and agrees with it, while also disagreeing with Modern Versions.

16. 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?

Yes, it was the Geneva Bible, the Textus Receptus, and the other versions that agree with these.

17. 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?

Don’t bother to think you are so smart by having "discovered" a printer’s mistake. To talk about the mistakes of a printer is one thing. To talk about men, who were not saved, who were occultists, or who were enemies of the Cross of Christ...actually being allowed to translate the Scripture from known corrupted manuscripts...on purpose is something very different. There is no equivalence between the two, so let’s not be trying to suggest that there is.

18. 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 ]

Why is it that Modern Version advocates rejoice in seeing men of God - who make the mistake of faulty conclusions about the Word of God, or the King James Version ? Its almost as if they rejoice...when someone says that the Word of God has mistakes in it. This is what they seem to want to force others to admit...why would those who are true Servants of Jesus Christ...rejoice in something like this ?

If Spurgeon is mistaken, then that is unfortunate. What is accurate is what is in the Textus Receptus and the KJV. We should keep in mind however, that Spurgeon for all his ministry used the King James Version. 

19. 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]."?

The issue is not whether Norman Pickering is an apostate. The issue is why Modern Version advocates begin with the premise that Imperfect Translations are what God is supposed to have given us, and seem – in a hundred different ways – to constantly be trying to cram this point of view down the throats of Pastors and laymen...who themselves are actually trying to read, accept and follow the Bible.

Each language has its own words, and its own structure. And each language is subject to its own limitations within its own context. However, that does not mean that the meaning of a word cannot ever be arrived at, - [which is what Textual Critics and Modern Version advocates want you to say]  and then this premise becomes the basis to have sloppy, and innacurate translations, which are taken from Greek Manuscripts which are known to be corrupt.

The issue of whether or not we have a equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]. which is "perfect" – according to your definition of what a "perfect" word is...is not the issue. God said what he wanted to say. Why do you insist on attempting to suggest that God’s word is insufficient ? Why does it make them happy to hear anyone else say and agree with them that the Bible text anyone uses is corrupt, unreliable, fallible, wrong, vile, or to be rejected ?

These Textual Critics, in the name of being on God's side, are defending manuscripts that are known to have been rejected by the Historic Christian Church, and are Rejecting Bible Manuscripts that are known to have been accepted by the Historic Christian Church. (the proof is in the Revision Revised by Dean Burgon).

Modern Version Advocates:

 Think you can Handle some of the QUESTIONS

that Textual Critics don't want you to be asking ?

What are you doing for Jesus ?