Welcome Guest!
 Herb Evans
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
64 Bible Corrector Questions [1 of 2]  John Henry
 Sep 11, 2003 01:02 PDT 

--=====================_24833631==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


BARRY THE BIBLE CORRECTOR'S

64 QUESTIONS

[Part One: Questions 1 to 29]

by Herb Evans



INTRODUCTION

                 Miguel Jurna posted these questions from Barry Davis the
Bible Corrector's E-mail List (pastor-@yahoo.com) to the BBFI Open
List, and requested that someone answer them. We could not resist the
challenge. We answered most of the questions off the cuff with the
exception of the manuscript study questions and the Greek study questions
and the historical dates. Most of Barry's questions are loaded and
opinionated, which resulted in some opinionated answers. We knew that Barry
was setting a trap with many of the questions, but approached them one by
one without peeking at the ones that followed. To our surprise, we were
consistent throughout, having to make only minor changes to our rough
draft. Later, we added the scripture verses to each answer. Also, we
implemented a few suggestions and comments from the brethren on IFB and the
King James Lists (IF-@listbot.com). Shortly after our posting of these
answers, we received favorable comments and requests to print the answers
in booklet form. Well, with a bit more education on our word processing
program and our laser printer, we have done just that. Since we do not
believe in copyrighting our material, this booklet claims no copyright
rights, so anyone may duplicate it to further the cause of the King James
Bible. Our motto is "Freely received, freely given." We would hope that the
brethren would be honorable and not steal our name from the booklet's
contents.     -- Herb Evans



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



             Answer: It was never revised; it was edited. The New King
James is a real revision and is corrupt. An edition is not a revision. The
majority of the changes were spelling and punctuation and grammatical
changes due to an English that was being refined and standardized. We will
settle on the 1769 as being the inspired word of God in English. It’s what
I use. But then, what is your definition of inspiration? Will you reason
from the scriptures or from your contemporary extra-scriptural sources and
man-made theology? -- Evans



             The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy
precepts. -- Ps. 119:110



             . . . reasoned with them OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES . . . -- Acts
17:2



2. What Bible would these KJV Advocates recommend, since before 1611 there
was no Bible (according to them)?



             Answer: I would recommend the Old Latin Bible of the
Waldensians and also any English Bible except the Rheims prior to 1611 over
anything else that has come along since with the understanding that they
were not intentional corruptions but did have some minor flaws that needed
the refinement process. Still, the question is not what I would recommend
for those of that era; it is what they would recommend for themselves
without you or me dictating to them after the fact. We cannot speak for
them and neither can they speak for us. Printed Bibles did not precede the
Gutenberg (1450-56) in Germany. England's first printing press was in 1477.
The English people, except for the Geneva Bible, did not possess very many
bibles prior to 1611. The English language, the English Bible, and the
medium for the Bible were all being refined at the very same time within
less than 76 years, 1535 to 1611. -- Evans



             The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a
furnace of EARTH, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES. -- Ps. 12:6



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



             Answer: The very word, “Apocrypha,” as defined in English,
should tell you that being contained in the original Bible does not mean
being recognized as Scripture, any more than the maps and preface and
concordance in your present Bible are recognized as scripture. The
Apocrypha was placed - not in the O.T. nor in the N.T. - but in between,
clearly designating that it was not scripture. Still, is this not the pot
calling the kettle black in that your favorite Alexandrian source texts
contained the Apocrypha? -- Evans



             Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures . . . -- Matt. 22:29



4. 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!



             Answer: What are your verse and chapter for that dogmatic
statement? Are you asking us or pontificating to us? If what you are
suggesting is true, you should be preaching the Koine Greek. Did the Koine
Greek Bible result in your salvation, if you are saved? If God chose Hebrew
to reveal His covenants, how did Paul translate O.T. passages into Greek
without a loss of inspiration and purity? Who do you know that advocates
that God gave His word in only one language? -- Evans



             . . . ALL scripture . . . IS PROFITABLE . . . -- 2 Tim 3:16



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



             Answer: Why would anyone want to add or detract from an
inspired translation? If God already gave us an inspired translation in
English, why would He want to give us another? If He gave us an inspired
translation in Hebrew and as you say Koine Greek, why didn't He give us
other inspired translations in other Greek dialects and modern Hebrew? Did
God author the differences in the Greek texts? Where did the differences
come from? God? -- Evans



             For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven . . . Ps. 119:89



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

             Answer: Probably because He did not extend His supervision to
the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them are without
errors and none are even complete. We can't

expect more of the KJB Bible printers than we can of the Hebrew and Greek
printers, now can we? Don't you make any distinctions between textual
errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also? -- Evans

             Know now that there shall fall unto the earth NOTHING of the
WORD of the LORD . . .

-- 2 Kings 10:10



             . . . the word of the LORD was precious in those days . . .
And Samuel grew and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words
fall to the ground. -- 1 Sam 3:1,19



7. 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!

             Answer: Do you really believe their notes were inspired? Which
ones? The King James translators did not realize the extent of their work,
as demonstrated by their introduction. They were unusually honest and
modest, trying to show what choices were available. But in every language,
dictionaries give multiple meanings to a word. Do you think the translators
were calling into question

their own work as you are? Do not preachers give the same explanations in
the pulpit, without changing the word of God? -- Evans



             Search the scriptures . . . -- John 5:39



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



             Answer: They did not know it, because they were not inspired,
the very same reason that Paul, Moses, Matthew, and Mark did not know it.
You see, even the original writers were not inspired. Only the scriptures
are said to be inspired, and it is God that inspires His word - not men! Of
course, come to think of it, the devil does inspire Bible Correctors. -- Evans



. . . ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION . . . -- 2 Tim. 3:16



9. Why were 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 “Translator to the Reader?”



             Answer: Do you really believe that these portions were
inspired? If not, perhaps, that is the reason. Then again, what American is
interested in James of Scotland? Who reads those things anyway? Was it
removed to save money on printing? Paper? To have competitive pricing? What
do you think? In your Bible Correcting paranoia, do you suppose an ulterior
motive? -- Evans



             . . . MY words shall not pass away . . . -- Matt. 24:35



.    . . . MY words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of
thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of THY
SEED’s SEED, SAITH THE lord, FROM HENCEFORTH AND FOR EVER. -- Isa. 59:21



10. 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?



             Answer: Which Greek and which TR? Which difference? Whose
interpretation of the Greek? The Greek language is very different from
English. Do you suppose that has something to do with it? The KJB does
correct many corrupt Greek texts. Still, what makes you think that the
Greek is always correct? Does one of them always have to be wrong? Could
there be some reconciling factors that folks do not know about? Is it
possible that both could be saying the same thing then and now? Should we
exercise the logic of faith based on scriptural principles or should we
exercise non-scriptural logic based upon the skepticism of men? -- Evans



             . . . THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works . . . -- 2
Tim 3:17



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



             Answer: Italics were included, not because they were
"necessary," but because the translators were trying to be honest by
showing that the underlying word was neither there but implied in English
(the way we speak), NOR the word was not found in Greek/Hebrew but was
found in another language or source. Without the italicized words, the
sentences from Greek would be mere fragments in English. Jesus would be
left out of Luke 19:1, and the sentence would be without a subject. There
is no such thing as a word for word translation from any language to some
other language. Why do quoted words in italics in the English O.T. wind up
without italics in the English N.T.? For example, the ox treading out the
"CORN?" -- Evans



             And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail . . . -- Luke 16:17



12. 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?



             Answer: Most of the so called archaic language is not really
archaic, as shown by Laurence Vance in his book, where he demonstrates many
of those words being used in modern publications. He also demonstrates how
much of the so called archaic language is necessary to convey the Hebrew
and Greek idioms and tenses. We might add that the HOLY scriptures are not
to be read "casually." It is the preacher’s job to be apt to teach and
give the sense of a given passage. It is not a Christian’s job to dumb
down God's word. -- Evans



             So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and
gave the SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading. -- Neh. 8:8



13. 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 Webster, 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 [sic] their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?



             Answer: Good question, but it does not apply to me. I just
recently and publicly came out against Christians copyrighting their
endeavors. Perhaps, not for your reason, but I had plenty of other reasons.
My motto is freely received, freely given. So, I do find fault with the
modern copyrighted Bible practice without being guilty of your implied
double standard. I suspect filthy lucre in all this modern translation,
copyright business as well as the love of money being the root of that
evil. -- Evans



             . . . freely ye have received, freely give . . . -- Matt. 10:8



             . . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us
received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God
. . . -- 1 Thess. 2:13



14. 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)



             Answer: Again, which TR and which GREEK? I think it would be
equally ridiculous to worship a language such as Hebrew and Greek,
especially if a man could not fluently read, speak, and understand it. And
especially, if one did not know which Greek and Hebrew to worship.
Christians worship God in spirit and truth not in uncertainty and
confusion. How one worships is as important as what one worships. "Trust in
God" versus "trust in man" are the options. Which one do you think you have
picked? I think it would be equally ridiculous to dogmatically call the TR
the original, when it is but an assumption without a verse and chapter,
especially when one does not know which TR to title as the Original.
Without a perfect Greek or Hebrew Text, how do you Alexandrians expect to
correct something which you claim is not correct? I think that it would be
equally ridiculous to say that the English KJB has errors upon the say so
and interpretation of others, who parrot others, who learned their Greek
rules of grammar from an infidel, third or fourth hand. -- Evans



             . . . thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name . . . --
Ps. 138:2



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? “Word of God?”



             Answer: But much has been corroborated by earlier manuscripts
found since then, demonstrating God's unique methods of preservation. What
do you mean "small" manuscripts? That has to be a classic statement? Do
you subscribe to the theory that an earlier corruption is better than a
later authenticity? Are you suggesting that several centuries of Christians
had to wait for the real word of God to be found? Odd that over 5200
manuscripts support the readings in the KJB (mostly majority text), while
less than 50 support the readings in other bibles (mostly minority text).
Now, if a person believes that God superintends the preservation of His
word, he is comfortable with such history. But if a person believes it
takes man to decide what is preserved and what is not, I can see where he
would have a problem trusting God. For you, who trust in men, Erasmus, an
expert in his field, was well traveled and well versed in variant disputes
from reading early church disputes as is reflected in his notes. If he
chose a handful of late manuscripts, he evidently had good reason to do so.
The principle of judging bibles by their fruit is the scriptural method.
Which bible do you think fares the best under that sort of a
scrutiny?                -- Evans



             . . .So shall my WORD be that goeth forth out of my mouth . .
.   it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, and it shall PROSPER . . . --
Isa 55:11



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 Latin Vulgate was translated into English -
a translation of a
translation?



             Answer: NO, I did not KNOW that. And be prepared for a shock,
you don't KNOW that either. You have merely parroted an opinion of some
scholar that believes that. While it is true that the last six verses of
Codex 1r (Rev 22:16-21), which Erasmus used, were missing, your parroted
theory has been disputed by HOSKIER, on the evidence of manuscript 141*.
You can't seem to make up your mind whether to attack the KJB or attack the
TR; Can you? Who says the TR is an error free Text? Can you prove it? In
his 4th translation of his Greek New Testament (1527). Erasmus supposedly
corrected much of this text which was thought to be a translation based on
a comparison with the Compluensian Polyglot Bible. Other manuscripts, 296,
2049, and the margin of 2067 may also be included in this evidence. The
Book of life versus the tree of life dispute may also be supported by the
Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th
century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century). There is internal
evidence also, for instance, the way that "David" is spelled in Erasmus'
translation was the same as Koine Greek, something Erasmus would not have
done if he were translating from the Latin. The spelling of "David" in the
critical text is in classical Greek and differs. So much for the rest of
the story! -- Evans



             (*The Text of the Apocalypse, by H.C. Hoskier, London:
Quaritch, 1929,vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454, 635)



             . . . the word of our God shall stand FOR EVER . . . -- Isa. 40:8



             Holding fast the FAITHFUL word as he hath been taught, that he
may be able by SOUND doctrine both to exhort and to convince the
gainsayers. -- Titus 1:9



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 their skin is rough with
goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "PHILEO" love
words.)



Answer: Now this is a real "gasser."



             The first time, Jesus says "lovest (AGAPAO) thou me . . .



             The second time, Jesus says, "lovest (AGAPAO) thou me . . .



             The third time, Jesus says, "lovest (PHILEO) thou me . . .



             The narrative says: "Peter was grieved because he said unto
him the THIRD TIME, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me . . . -- John 21:15-17



             Now, poor ignorant King James Onlies are just dumb enough to
believe that the first and second time were the same as the third time.
Either the Greek matching words are in error or it does not matter, which
word is used. It surely does not matter in English. So, yes, throw out your
Greek dictionary and buy a 10-cent English paper back that tells you what
love means. Besides, the Hebrew and Greek is far more archaic than the
English and much less clear, so throw `em out. As for your demon goose
with pimples (you have a vivid imagination), Webster gives one of the
meanings of "tremble" as "shiver." HO HUM! -- Evans



             . . . comparing spiritual things with spiritual . . . -- 1
Cor. 2:13



18. A. 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.)



             Answer: A mate selection manual? HA HA HA, HO HO HO, HEE, HEE,
HEE, HAR HAR HAR. You have to be kidding! Baptist have been teaching it as
descriptive of the church for years. You can find our comparison outlined
in Ephesians 5:23-32. You are the one with the bum
theology. Nevertheless, you must be pretty desperate to grasp at the straw
of the notes, rather than the text. Why should we trust you, when you deal
in doubtful disputations? -- Evans



             For we are not as MANY which CORRUPT the word of God . . . --
2 Cor. 2:17



18.B. 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?”



             Answer: Your research is a bit shoddy here. The 1611 KJB says,
S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John and follows William Tyndale, who
says SANYCTE John and etc. The modern Bibles follow the Catholic Rheims,
which says, "According to John" and etc. The Eastern Lamsa (English
Peshitta) says, Saint John and etc. You don’t believe they were
saints? Eh? -- Evans



             . . . called to be SAINTS . . . 1 Cor. 1:2 . . . Preach the
word . . . -- 2 Tim. 4:2



19. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church
in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired
translation?” (Mormons 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).



             Answer: KJV ONLIES stand beside the Catholic church in
believing the trinity. Do Bible correctors realize that they stand behind
the devil himself in believing his, "Yea, hath God said's?" Do Bible
correctors realize that they stand beside the Catholic Church in that the
Catholic church believes that human, Bible gainsaying traditions and
secular history, having thousands of errors, are as inspired or more
inspired than the Bible? Nevertheless, we dare not compare ourselves as
those, who measure and compare themselves by themselves. Bible correctors
are much more compatible with your Mormon comparison than KJB onlies in
that Mormons also have a final authority that supersedes the King James
Bible. What do the thousands of errors in the 1611 Bible consist? Printers'
errors? How many errors of fact, can you find? How many errors of
translation do you find? Break down those thousands of errors for us into
some kind of specifics, rather than pontificating to us with such a generic
statement. Where are these thousands of errors? -- Evans



             . . . The scripture CANNOT be broken . . .   -- John 10:35



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 none
were translated under the inspired supervision of God?



             Answer: KJB Onlies realize that you do not believe that you
have a preserved word of God in your language. They also realize that you
do not have a preserved word of God in Hebrew or Greek by your own
standards. They also realize that modern corruptions with gross errors and
intentional corruption do not bother you, but gnat straining the KJB
appeals to you. They also realize that you do not have an inspired Bible
in any language, which frees you to insert your own opinions and become the
final authority. Pope Bible Corrector, First Class, with a Purple Shaft and
an Oak Leaf Cluster. Your "errors in all Bibles" theories are little "hope"
and "comfort of the SCRIPTURES" (Rom. 15:4) to God's people, leaving them
with total uncertainty. Our God is not an author of confusion nor
uncertainty but a God of peace and comfort. If God has nothing to do with
translations, he has nothing to do with your re-translation attempts and
error finding escapades, so KJO's are no worse off than you already admit
to being. So why should we listen to you? –Evans



             . . . that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures
might have hope . . .   -- Rom. 15:4



             . . . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. -- Matt. 4:4



21. Why would the Holy Spirit misguide 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?



             Answer: Isn't it odd that one of Webster's meanings of Satyr
is an orangutan? But then the Hebrew Sa'iyr is translated goats, satyrs,
devils, and kids (and the goat man of Grecia in Daniel) throughout the O.T.
and is even translated a hairy man. So, you have your work cut out for
you. I would suggest reading what the translators said for themselves of
these matters in their introduction to the readers. Why should we not
understand some of the Bible creatures as being extinct? Or would you
prefer us trying to equate the behemoth of Job with a hippopotamus? Oh?
With a tail the size of a Cedar tree? Hmmmm? Why do you assume that they
were mythical creatures? Surely, the one horned rhino of Asia could
qualify. Do you have the same objection for the word dragon in the Bible?
Is it mythical? Obviously, you are ignorant of what a common viper is. A
common viper does not lay eggs like the cockatrice (Isa. 59:5); a common
viper's young are born already hatched. -- Evans



             . . . some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and UNSTABLE wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction . . . -- 2 Peter 3:17



22. A. 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);



             Answer: It would be rather hard for them to distinguish
between a devil and a word that did not come into theological usage until
after their translation. Still, one does not have to distinguish such a
thing in English. The rules of one language do not necessarily apply to
another. The translation devils and devil and the prince of devils rids us
of all the foolishness of Philo, Josephus, and ancient Greek thought over
what a demon was or is. The terms devil and Prince of devils along with
their definite articles (or lack thereof) distinguishes between both
Satan's unique position among his emissaries, while also showing his
kinship to them. Your distinction is a superfluity of naughtiness.
Superfluous gnat straining. -- Evans



             Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of
naughtiness, and receive the engrafted word, which is able to save your
souls. -- James 1:21



22. B. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to
correctly distinguish between "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt
5:22-GEHENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown
into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)



             Answer: Well, each one of those places is hell, whether hell
number one, hell number two, or hell number three. One of the hells is the
"LOWEST" hell, so why do you not address that distinction (Deut. 32:22; Ps.
86:13)? -- Evans



             . . .For a FIRE is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto
the LOWEST hell . . .         --Deut. 32:32



             . . . the word of his grace, which is able to build you up . .
. -- Acts 20:32



22. C. 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 where none
exist?



             Answer: An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee
of (gentle reader) that wee haue not tyed ourselves to an vniformitie of
phrasing, or to an identitie of words as some peraduenture would wish that
we had done, because they obserue that some learned men some where, haue
been as exact as they could that way . . . Why should wee be in bondage to
them if we may be free, vse one precisely when wee may vse another no lesse
fit as commodiously?   -- The 1611 translators



             . . . a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures
of silver . . . --Pro. 25:11



23. 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.)



             Answer: The rules in Greek are not the same in English for the
articles. They are not even the same for Koine Greek and Classical
Greek. The critical Greek text does not use the definite article before
David but Erasmus' text does. In other words, "the David." Now that is
proper Greek as so used by the Greeks today, but it is not proper English.
The choice in English depends on other factors besides whether or not the
word is in the text. The Son of God is correct due to deity being involved,
it was an angel all right, the angel of the Lord, like unto the Son of God.
Still, it is not uncommon for "professing" Christians to NOT KNOW THE SON
OF GOD, but then he that hath not THE SON OF GOD HATH NOT LIFE! -- Evans



              . . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because
he believeth not the RECORD that God gave of his SON . . . -- 1 Jn 5:10



24. 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"?



             Answer: You need to do a bit more research. The Book of life
is found in manuscript 141, 196, 2049, and the margin of 2067 may also be
included as support. Also, the Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose
(397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th
century). Acts 9:6 may have no Greek support, due to the scarcity of the
Western Texts that have been found. But this has been the case with other
passages, which have been included in the KJB with only Latin or other
authorities to back them up. Later, Greek texts were found that support
them as in the case of 1 John 2:23. If your crowd had been or would
be followed, we would only have a tentative Bible. Who makes the rules in
this regard–you or God? Who preserves the Bible; you or God? Nevertheless,
Acts 9:6 is supported by the English bibles that you were so concerned
about, which predate the KJB, i.e., Tyndale's, Bishop's, YOUR Geneva, and
the Great Bibles. Also the Greek Stephen, Beza, Oliver. Also the 629 Latin,
the Old Latin: ar c h l p ph t; Vulgate: Clementine fuld
demid; Slavonic, Hilary, Poictiers, Latin, 367; Lucifer, Cagliari, Latin
370; Ephraem, Syria 373; Ambrose, Milan, Latin 397; Theophylact, Bulgaria,
1077. -- Evans



             These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they
received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures
daily, whether those things were so.   -- Acts 17:11



25. 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)



             Answer: How can we trust your "probably," which ignores the
other growing evidence for 1 John 5:8, i.e., 61, 88 margin, 221 margin, 429
margin, 629, 635 margin, 636 margin, 918, and 2318? Quoted by Cyprian
(250), Priscillian and Idacius Clarus (4th century), Cassiodorus
(480-570), Old Latin r (5th or 6th century), The Speculum Treatise which
contains an Old Latin Text (5th century), Most Latin Vulgates, de Trinitate
and Contra Varimadum (490), several Peshitta manuscripts, 2 manuscripts
underlying a German Syriac edition, an Armenian manuscript, the first
printed Georgian Bible, and etc. Still, who is trusting the TR, whichever
one you mean? You seem like you think God is impotent to preserve His word
and to put it in another language. He did it once from Hebrew to Greek. Why
not trust Him to have done it again? -- Evans



             Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast
founded them FOR EVER . . . -- Ps 119:152



             . . . Thy word is true FROM THE BEGINNING: and EVERY ONE of
thy righteous judgements endureth FOR EVER . . . -- Ps. 119:160



26. 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"?



             Answer: Do you charge the translators with such variants or
the printers, and how do you know who to charge? Do today's standards of
grammar apply to 1611? When would you say our English grammar and
spellings were standardized? Do you also object to the use of a singular
plural for the word sin, i.e., "all my sin?" Do the words seraphim and
seraphims both reflect the connotation of more than one Seraph? Would you
translate "Elohim" God or Gods, since the "IM" designates a plural? -- Evans



             In the beginning GOD (ELOH-IM) created the heaven and the
earth. -- Gen 1:1



             As newborn babes desire the SINCERE milk of the word, that ye
may grow thereby . . .    -- 1 Pet 2:2



27. 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?



             Answer: May we remind you that the Geneva Bible contains the
parts of Acts 9:6, which you object. Is Acts 9:6, in the Geneva bible, the
word of God or the word of man? Should we call the word of man the word of
God? We do not know your definition of flawless. If you mean a different
spelling or a different grammatical construction or the Old English type
font or differences that do not affect the true meaning of a passage, then
NO, it does not have to be so! But if you mean a corruption of the text,
then Yes, it is not God's word. We limit the word of God to only one
published English Bible today, simply because all the other modern bibles
are corruptions (intentionally so). – Evans



Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it . . . --Ps. 119:140



28. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest
[poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?



             Answer: No, they and you are liars because God says all men
are liars (Rom. 3:4). Therefore, both your and their statements must be
tested. In fact, you might be a liar for interpreting their word "meanest"
as "poorest" considering Webster's options. Would you say the translators
were including corruptions like the JW bible into the category of being
the word of God? Do you consider the JW bible the word of God? Romans 3:4
also says "Let God be true." Why don't you let him, seeing that you are a
liar, according to His word? -- Evans



             . . . Let God be true, but every man a liar . . . -- Rom. 3:4



             . . . faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God. -- Rom. 10:17



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



             Answer: Yes, I certainly do. Yet, I do not believe the Greek
and Hebrew that they did not use are the word of God. Do you know what
portions they used and what portions they did not use? And from which
Greek? Oh, you are going to check up on infallible and inspired history or
what infallible Prof. Whachamahamaczysz says? Take your time. -- Evans



      . . . That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men . . . --
1 Cor. 2:5


--=====================_24833631==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<br>
<font size=3><b>BARRY THE BIBLE CORRECTOR'S<br>
<br>
64 QUESTIONS<br>
<br>
[Part One: Questions 1 to 29]<br>
<br>
<i>by Herb Evans<br>
<br>
</i> <br>
<br>
INTRODUCTION<br>
<br>
               
Miguel Jurna posted these questions from Barry Davis the Bible
Corrector's E-mail List (pastor-@yahoo.com) to the BBFI Open List,
and requested that someone answer them. We could not resist the
challenge. We answered most of the questions off the cuff with the
exception of the manuscript study questions and the Greek study questions
and the historical dates. Most of Barry's questions are loaded and
opinionated, which resulted in some opinionated answers. We knew that
Barry was setting a trap with many of the questions, but approached them
one by one without peeking at the ones that followed. To our surprise, we
were consistent throughout, having to make only minor changes to our
rough draft. Later, we added the scripture verses to each answer. Also,
we implemented a few suggestions and comments from the brethren on IFB
and the King James Lists (IF-@listbot.com). Shortly after our posting of
these answers, we received favorable comments and requests to print the
answers in booklet form. Well, with a bit more education on our word
processing program and our laser printer, we have done just that. Since
we do not believe in copyrighting our material, this booklet claims no
copyright rights, so anyone may duplicate it to further the cause of the
King James Bible. Our motto is "Freely received, freely given."
We would hope that the brethren would be honorable and not steal our name
from the booklet's contents.     -- Herb Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769?<br>
<br>
</b><i>   <br>
<br>
</i>           
<b>Answer: </b>It was never revised; it was edited. The New King James is
a real revision and is corrupt. An edition is not a revision. The
majority of the changes were spelling and punctuation and grammatical
changes due to an English that was being refined and standardized. We
will settle on the 1769 as being the inspired word of God in English.
It’s what I use. But then, what is your definition of inspiration? Will
you reason from the scriptures or from your contemporary extra-scriptural
sources and man-made theology?  <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            The
wicked have <b>laid a snare</b> for me: yet <b>I erred not from thy
precepts</b>.  </i><b>-- Ps. 119:110<br>
<br>
</b><i> <br>
<br>
            . . .
reasoned with them<b> OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES</b> . . .</i><b> -- Acts
17:2</b>  <br>
<br>
<b> <br>
<br>
2. What Bible would these KJV Advocates recommend, since before 1611
there was no Bible (according to them)?<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>           
Answer: </b>I would recommend the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensians and
also any English Bible except the Rheims prior to 1611 over anything else
that has come along since with the understanding that they were not
intentional corruptions but did have some minor flaws that needed the
refinement  process.  Still, the question is not what I would
recommend for those of that era; it is what they would recommend for
themselves without you or me dictating to them after the fact. We cannot
speak for them and neither can they speak for us. Printed Bibles did not
precede the Gutenberg (1450-56) in Germany. England's first printing
press was in 1477. The English people, except for the Geneva Bible, did
not possess very many bibles prior to 1611. The English language, the
English Bible, and the medium for the Bible were all being refined at the
very same time within less than 76 years, 1535 to 1611. <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            The
words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of
EARTH,<b> PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES.</b></i>  <b>-- Ps. 12:6</b> <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
<b>3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>           
Answer:</b> The very word, “Apocrypha,” as defined in English, should
tell you that being contained in the original Bible does not mean being
recognized as Scripture, any more than the maps and preface and
concordance in your present Bible are recognized as scripture. The
Apocrypha was placed - not in the O.T. nor in the N.T. - but in between,
clearly designating that it was not scripture. Still, is this not the pot
calling the kettle black in that your favorite Alexandrian source texts
contained the Apocrypha? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b><i>           
Ye do err</b>, not knowing the scriptures . . .</i> <b>-- Matt. 22:29
<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>4. 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!<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
           
<b>Answer: </b>What are your verse and chapter for that dogmatic
statement? Are you asking us or pontificating to us? If what you are
suggesting is true, you should be preaching the Koine Greek. Did the
Koine Greek Bible result in your salvation, if you are saved? If God
chose Hebrew to reveal His covenants, how did Paul translate O.T.
passages into Greek without a loss of inspiration and purity? Who do you
know that advocates that God gave His word in only one language? <b>--
Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . .
. <b>ALL</b> scripture . . . <b>IS</b> PROFITABLE  . . .</i> 
<b>-- 2 Tim 3:16 <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>5. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would</b>
<b>God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>Why would anyone want to add or detract from an inspired translation? If God already gave us an inspired translation in English, why would He want to give us another? If He gave us an inspired translation in Hebrew and as you say Koine Greek, why didn't He give us other inspired translations in other Greek dialects and modern Hebrew? Did God author the differences in the Greek texts? Where did the differences come from?  God? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
<i>            <b>For ever</b>, O LORD, thy word is <b>settled</b> in heaven . . .</i> <b>Ps. 119:89</b>  <br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
<b>6. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?</b>               <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>Probably because He did not extend His supervision to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them are without errors and none are even complete. We can't <br>
<br>
expect more of the KJB Bible printers than we can of the Hebrew and Greek printers, now can we? Don't you make any distinctions between textual errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also? <b>-- Evans</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            Know now that there shall fall unto the earth <b>NOTHING</b> of the WORD of the LORD . . .</i>  <br>
<br>
<b>-- 2 Kings 10:10<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . the word of the LORD was<b> precious</b> in those days . . . And Samuel grew and the LORD was with him, and did let <b>none of his words</b> fall to the ground.  </i><b>-- 1 Sam 3:1,19</b>  <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
<b>7. 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!                          <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>Do you really believe their notes were inspired? Which ones? The King James translators did not realize the extent of their work, as demonstrated by their introduction. They were unusually honest and modest, trying to show what choices were available. But in every language, dictionaries give multiple meanings to a word. Do you think the translators were calling into question<br>
<br>
their own work as you are? Do not preachers give the same explanations in the pulpit, without changing the word of God? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            Search the scriptures . . .</i> <b>-- John 5:39<br>
<br>
</b><div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
<b></div>
8. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            Answer:</b> They did not know it, because they were not inspired, the very same reason that Paul, Moses, Matthew, and Mark did not know it. You see, even the original writers were not inspired. Only the scriptures are said to be inspired, and it is God that inspires His word - not men! Of course, come to think of it, the devil does inspire Bible Correctors. --<b> Evans<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
</b><i>. . . <b>ALL</b> SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION . . .</i><b> -- 2 Tim. 3:16<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>9. Why were 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 “Translator to the Reader?”<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>            Answer:</b> Do you really believe that these portions were inspired? If not, perhaps, that is the reason. Then again, what American is interested in James of Scotland? Who reads those things anyway? Was it removed to save money on printing? Paper? To have competitive pricing? What do you think? In your Bible Correcting paranoia, do you suppose an ulterior motive? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . <b>MY</b> words shall not pass away . . .</i> <b>-- Matt. 24:35<br>
<br>
</b><i> <br>
<br>
.    . . . <b>MY</b> words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of <b>THY SEED’s SEED</b>, SAITH THE lord, <b>FROM HENCEFORTH AND FOR EVER</i>. -- Isa. 59:21<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
10. 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?                         <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>            Answer:</b> Which Greek and which TR? Which difference? Whose interpretation of the Greek? The Greek language is very different from English. Do you suppose  that has something to do with it?  The KJB does correct many corrupt Greek texts. Still, what makes you think that the Greek is always correct? Does one of them always have to be wrong? Could there be some reconciling factors that folks do not know about? Is it possible that both could be saying the same thing then and now? Should we exercise the logic of faith based on scriptural principles or should we exercise non-scriptural logic based upon the skepticism of men?  <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b><i> <br>
<br>
            .  .  .  <b>THROUGHLY FURNISHED</b> unto <b>ALL</b> good works . . . </i><b>-- 2 Tim 3:17<br>
<br>
</b><div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
<b></div>
11. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?     <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>Italics were included, not because they were "necessary," but  because the translators were trying to be honest by showing that the underlying word was neither there but implied in English (the way we speak), NOR the word was not found in Greek/Hebrew but was found in another language or source. Without the italicized words, the sentences from Greek would be mere fragments in English. Jesus would be left out of  Luke 19:1, and the sentence would be without a subject. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from any language to some other language. Why do quoted words in italics in the English  O.T. wind up without italics in the English N.T.? For example, the ox treading out the "CORN?"  <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b><i> <br>
<br>
            And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail . . . </i><b>-- Luke 16:17 <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>12. 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?<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>Most of the so called archaic language is not really archaic, as shown by Laurence Vance in his book, where he demonstrates many of those words being used in modern publications. He also demonstrates how much of the so called archaic language is necessary to convey the Hebrew and Greek idioms and tenses.  We might add that the HOLY scriptures are not to be read "casually."  It is the preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of  a given  passage.  It is not a Christian’s job to dumb down God's word. <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
<i>            So they read in the book of the law of God <b>distinctly</b>, and gave the <b>SENSE</b>, and caused them to understand the reading. </i><b>-- Neh. 8:8<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>13. 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 Webster, 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 [sic] their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?<br>
<br>
                                    <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>Good question, but it does not apply to me. I just recently and publicly came out against  Christians copyrighting their endeavors. Perhaps, not for your reason, but I had plenty of other reasons. My motto is freely received, freely given. So, I do find fault with the modern copyrighted Bible practice without being guilty of your implied double standard. I suspect filthy lucre in all this modern translation, copyright business as well as the love of money being the root of that evil. <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b><i><div align="center">
    <br>
<br>
</div>
            . . . freely ye have received, freely give . . .</i><b>  -- Matt. 10:8<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God . . . </i><b>-- 1 Thess. 2:13</b>     <br>
<br>
<div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
<b></div>
14. 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)                             <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>Again, which TR and which GREEK? I think it would be equally ridiculous to worship a language such as Hebrew and Greek, especially if a man could not fluently read, speak, and understand it. And especially, if one did not know which Greek and Hebrew to worship. Christians worship God in spirit and truth not in uncertainty and confusion. How one worships is as important as what one worships. "Trust in God" versus "trust in man" are the options. Which one do you think you have picked? I think it would be equally ridiculous to dogmatically call the TR the original, when it is but an assumption without a verse and chapter, especially when one does not know which TR to title as the Original. Without a perfect Greek or Hebrew Text, how do you Alexandrians expect to correct something which you claim is not correct? I think that it would be equally ridiculous to say that the English KJB has errors upon the say so and interpretation of others, who parrot others, who learned their Greek rules of grammar from an infidel, third or fourth hand. <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b><i> <br>
<br>
            . . . thou hast magnified thy <b>WORD </b>above all thy name . . . </i><b>-- Ps. 138:2</b> <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
<b>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? “Word of God?”<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>But much has been corroborated by earlier manuscripts found since then, demonstrating God's unique methods of preservation. What do you mean "small" manuscripts?  That has to be a classic statement? Do you subscribe to the theory that an earlier corruption is better than a later authenticity? Are you suggesting that several centuries of Christians had to wait for the real word of God to be found? Odd that over 5200 manuscripts support the readings in the KJB (mostly majority text), while less than 50 support the readings in other bibles (mostly minority text). Now, if a person believes that God superintends the preservation of His word, he is comfortable with such history. But if a person believes it takes man to decide what is preserved and what is not, I can see where he would have a problem trusting God. For you, who trust in men, Erasmus, an expert in his field, was well traveled and well versed in variant disputes from reading early church disputes as is reflected in his notes. If he chose a handful of late manuscripts, he evidently had good reason to do so. The principle of judging bibles by their fruit is the scriptural method. Which bible do you think fares the best under that sort of a scrutiny?                <b>-- Evans <br>
<br>
</b><i> <br>
<br>
            . . .So shall my <b>WORD</b> be that goeth forth out of my mouth . . .   it shall <b>ACCOMPLISH</b> that which I please, and it shall <b>PROSPER</b> . . .</i>  <b>-- Isa 55:11<br>
<br>
</b><div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
<b></div>
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 Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?                                                           <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>NO, I did not KNOW that. And be prepared for a shock, you don't KNOW that either. You have merely parroted an opinion of some scholar that believes that. While it is true that the last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev 22:16-21), which Erasmus used, were missing, your parroted theory has been disputed by HOSKIER, on the evidence of manuscript 141*. You can't seem to make up your mind whether to attack the KJB or attack the TR; Can you? Who says the TR is an error free Text? Can you prove it? In his 4th translation of his Greek New Testament (1527). Erasmus supposedly corrected much of this text which was thought to be a translation based on a comparison with the Compluensian Polyglot  Bible. Other manuscripts, 296, 2049, and the margin of 2067 may also be included in this evidence. The Book of life versus the tree of life dispute may also be supported by the Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century). There is internal evidence also, for instance, the way that "David" is spelled in Erasmus' translation was the same as Koine Greek, something Erasmus would not have done if he were translating from the Latin. The spelling of "David" in the critical text is in classical Greek and differs. So much for the rest of the story! <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            (*The Text of the Apocalypse, by H.C. Hoskier, London: Quaritch, 1929,vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454, 635) <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            <i>. . . the word of our God shall stand <b>FOR EVER</b> . . .</i> <b>-- Isa. 40:8<br>
<br>
<div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
</b><i></div>
            Holding fast the <b>FAITHFUL</b> word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by <b>SOUND</b> doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.</i>  <b>-- Titus 1:9</b> <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
<b>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 their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "<i>PHILEO</i>" love words.)                      </b>                            <br>
<br>
<div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
<b></div>
Answer: </b>Now this is a real "gasser." <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            The first time, Jesus says "lovest (<b><i>AGAPAO</b></i>) thou me . . .<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            The second time, Jesus says, "lovest (<b><i>AGAPAO</b></i>) thou me . . .<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            The third time, Jesus says, "lovest (<b><i>PHILEO</b></i>) thou me . . .<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            The narrative says: <i>"Peter was grieved because he said unto him the <b>THIRD TIME</b>, Lovest (<b>PHILEO</b>) thou me . . .</i>  <b>-- John 21:15-17<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            Now,  poor ignorant King James Onlies are just dumb enough to believe that the first and second time were the same as the third time. Either the Greek matching words are in error or it does not matter, which word is used. It surely does not matter in English. So, yes, throw out your Greek dictionary and buy a 10-cent English paper back that tells you what love means. Besides, the Hebrew and Greek is far more archaic than the English and much less clear, so throw `em out.  As for your demon goose with pimples (you have a vivid imagination), Webster gives one of the meanings of "tremble" as "shiver."  HO HUM! <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . comparing spiritual things with spiritual . . . </i><b>-- 1 Cor. 2:13<br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
<b>18. A. 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.)   <br>
<br>
                                                 <br>
<br>
</b>            <b>Answer: </b>A mate selection manual? HA HA HA, HO HO HO, HEE, HEE, HEE, HAR HAR HAR. You have to be kidding! Baptist have been teaching it as descriptive of the church for years. You can find our comparison outlined in Ephesians 5:23-32.  You are the one with the bum theology.  Nevertheless, you must be pretty desperate to grasp at the straw of the notes, rather than the text. Why should we trust you, when you deal in doubtful disputations? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b><i>  <br>
<br>
            For we are not as <b>MANY</b> which <b>CORRUPT</b> the word of God . . . </i><b>-- 2 Cor. 2:17<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
18.B. 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?”<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>Your research is a bit shoddy here. The 1611 KJB says, S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John and follows William Tyndale, who says<b> SANYCTE</b> John and etc. The modern Bibles follow the Catholic Rheims, which says, "According to John" and etc. The Eastern Lamsa (English Peshitta) says, Saint John and etc. You don’t believe they were saints?  Eh?  <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <i>. . . called to be <b>SAINTS</b> . . . </i><b>1 Cor. 1:2</b> . . . <i>Preach the word . . .</i>  -- 2 Tim. 4:2<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
<b>19. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were</b> <b>delivered an "inspired translation?” (Mormons 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).<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>KJV <b>ONLIES</b> stand beside the Catholic church in believing the trinity. Do Bible correctors realize that they stand behind the devil himself in believing his, "Yea, hath God said's?" Do Bible correctors realize that they stand beside the Catholic Church in that the Catholic church believes that human, Bible gainsaying traditions and secular history, having  thousands of errors, are as inspired or more inspired than the Bible? Nevertheless, we dare not compare ourselves as those, who measure and compare themselves by themselves. Bible correctors are much more compatible with your Mormon comparison than KJB onlies in that Mormons also have a final authority that supersedes the King James Bible. What do the thousands of errors in the 1611 Bible consist? Printers' errors? How many errors of fact, can you find? How many errors of translation do you find?  Break down those thousands of errors for us into some kind of specifics, rather than pontificating to us with such a generic statement. Where are these thousands of errors? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <i>. . . The scripture <b>CANNOT</b> be broken . . .   </i><b>-- John 10:35<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>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 none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
</b>            <b>Answer: </b>KJB Onlies realize that you do not believe that you have a preserved word of God in your language. They also realize that you do not have a preserved word of God in Hebrew or Greek by your own standards. They also realize that modern corruptions with gross errors and intentional corruption do not bother you, but gnat straining the KJB appeals to you.  They also realize that you do not have an inspired Bible in any language, which frees you to insert your own opinions and become the final authority. Pope Bible Corrector, First Class, with a Purple Shaft and an Oak Leaf Cluster. Your "errors in all Bibles" theories are little "hope" and "comfort of the SCRIPTURES" (Rom. 15:4) to God's people, leaving them with total uncertainty. Our God is not an  author of confusion nor uncertainty but a God of peace and comfort. If God has nothing to do with translations, he has nothing to do with your re-translation attempts and error finding escapades, so KJO's are no worse off than you already admit to being. So why should we listen to you? <b>–Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope . . .   </i><b>-- Rom. 15:4<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.  </i><b>-- Matt. 4:4 <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>21. Why would the Holy Spirit misguide 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?<br>
<br>
                                                <br>
<br>
</b>            <b>Answer:</b> Isn't it odd that one of Webster's meanings of <b>Satyr</b> is an orangutan? But then the Hebrew <b>Sa'iyr</b> is translated goats, satyrs, devils, and kids (and the goat man of Grecia in Daniel) throughout the O.T. and is even translated a hairy man. So, you have your work cut out for you.  I would suggest reading what the translators said for themselves of these matters in their introduction to the readers. Why should we not understand some of the Bible creatures as being extinct? Or would you prefer us trying to equate the behemoth of Job with a hippopotamus? Oh? With a tail the size of a Cedar tree? Hmmmm? Why do you assume that they were mythical creatures? Surely, the one horned rhino of Asia could qualify. Do you have the same objection for the word dragon in the Bible? Is it mythical? Obviously, you are ignorant of  what a common viper is. A common viper does not lay eggs like the cockatrice (Isa. 59:5); a common viper's young are born already hatched.<b>  -- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and <b>UNSTABLE</b> wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction . . .  </i><b>-- 2 Peter 3:17<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>22. A. 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);<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
</b>            <b>Answer:</b> It would be rather hard for them to distinguish between a devil and a word that did not come into theological usage until after their translation. Still, one does not have to distinguish such a thing in English. The rules of one language do not necessarily apply to another. The translation devils and devil and the prince of devils rids us of all the foolishness of Philo, Josephus,  and ancient Greek thought over what a demon was or is. The terms devil and Prince of devils along with their definite articles (or lack thereof) distinguishes between both Satan's unique position among his emissaries, while also showing his kinship to them. Your distinction is a superfluity of naughtiness. Superfluous gnat straining.  <b>-- Evans <br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
            <i>Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.</i><b> -- James 1:21<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
22. B. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEHENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)<br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer:</b> Well, each one of those places is hell, whether hell number one, hell number two, or hell number three. One of the hells is the "<b>LOWEST</b>" hell, so why do you not address that distinction (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13)? -- Evans<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
<i>            . . .For a FIRE is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the <b>LOWEST</b> hell</i> . . .         <b>--Deut. 32:32<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
</b><i>            . . . the word of his grace, which is able to build you up . . . </i><b>-- Acts 20:32<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
22. C.  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 where none exist?                                          <br>
<br>
   <br>
<br>
</b>            <b>Answer:</b> An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of  (gentle reader) that wee haue not tyed ourselves to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words as some peraduenture would wish that we had done, because they obserue that some learned men some where, haue been as exact as they could that way . . . Why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, vse one precisely when wee may vse another no lesse fit as commodiously?   -- <b>The 1611 translators <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver . . .  </i><b>--Pro. 25:11<br>
<br>
<div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
</div>
23. 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.)<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>The rules in Greek are not the same in English for the articles. They are not even the same for Koine Greek and Classical Greek.  The critical Greek text does not use the definite article before David but Erasmus' text does. In other words, "the David."  Now that is proper Greek as so used by the Greeks today, but it is not proper English. The choice in English depends on other factors besides whether or not the word is in the text. The Son of God is correct due to deity being involved, it was an angel all right, the angel of the Lord, like unto the Son of God. Still, it is not uncommon for "professing" Christians to NOT KNOW THE SON OF GOD, but then he that hath not THE SON OF GOD HATH NOT LIFE!<b> -- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
             <i>. . . he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the <b>RECORD</b> that God gave of his SON . . </i>.<b><i> </i>-- 1 Jn 5:10<br>
<br>
<div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
</div>
24. 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"?                                               <br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>You need to do a bit more research. The  Book of life is found in manuscript 141, 196, 2049,  and the margin of 2067 may also be included as support. Also, the Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th  century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century). Acts 9:6 may have no Greek support, due to the scarcity of the Western Texts that have been found. But this has been the case with other passages, which have been included in the KJB with only Latin or other authorities to back them up. Later, Greek texts were found that support them as in the case of 1 John 2:23. If your crowd had been or would be  followed, we would  only have a tentative Bible. Who makes the rules in this regard–you or God? Who preserves the Bible; you or God? Nevertheless, Acts 9:6 is supported by the English bibles that you were so concerned about, which predate the KJB, i.e., <b>Tyndale</b>'s, <b>Bishop</b>'s, YOUR <b>Geneva</b>, and the <b>Great</b> Bibles. Also the Greek <b>Stephen</b>, <b>Beza</b>, <b>Oliver</b>. Also the 629 Latin, the Old Latin: ar  c  h l p ph t; Vulgate: Clementine fuld demid;  Slavonic, Hilary, Poictiers, Latin,  367; Lucifer, Cagliari, Latin 370; Ephraem, Syria 373; Ambrose, Milan, Latin 397; Theophylact, Bulgaria, 1077.  <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
</b><i>            These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and <b>searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.</b>   </i><b>-- Acts 17:11<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
25. 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)<br>
<br>
  <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>How can we trust your "probably," which ignores the other growing evidence for 1 John 5:8, i.e., 61, 88 margin, 221 margin, 429 margin, 629, 635 margin, 636 margin, 918, and 2318? Quoted by Cyprian (250), Priscillian  and Idacius Clarus (4th century), Cassiodorus (480-570), Old Latin  r (5th or 6th century), The Speculum Treatise  which contains an Old Latin Text (5th century), Most Latin Vulgates, de Trinitate and Contra Varimadum (490), several Peshitta manuscripts, 2 manuscripts underlying a German Syriac edition, an Armenian manuscript, the first printed Georgian Bible, and etc. Still, who is trusting the TR, whichever one you mean? You seem like you think God is impotent to preserve His word and to put it in another language. He did it once from Hebrew to Greek. Why not trust Him to have done it again? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
<i>            Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them <b>FOR EVER </b>. . . </i><b>-- Ps 119:152<br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . Thy word is true <b>FROM THE BEGINNING</b>: and <b>EVERY ONE </b>of thy righteous judgements endureth <b>FOR EVER</b> . . .<b> --</i> Ps. 119:160 <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>26. 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"? <br>
<br>
</b>  <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>Do you charge the translators with such variants or the printers, and how do you know who to charge? Do today's standards of grammar apply to 1611?  When would you say our English grammar and spellings were standardized? Do you also object to the use of a singular plural for the word sin, i.e., "all my sin?" Do the words seraphim and seraphims both reflect the connotation of more than one Seraph? Would you translate "Elohim" God or Gods, since the "IM" designates a plural? <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b>    <br>
<br>
<i>            In the beginning GOD (ELOH-IM) created the heaven and the earth.</i>  <b>-- Gen 1:1<br>
<br>
</b><i>    <br>
<br>
            As newborn babes desire the <b>SINCERE</b> milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby . . . </i>   <b>-- 1 Pet 2:2<br>
<br>
</b><div align="center">
 <br>
<br>
<b></div>
27. 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?<br>
<br>
                  <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>May we remind you that the Geneva Bible contains the parts of Acts 9:6, which you object. Is Acts 9:6, in the Geneva bible, the word of God or the word of man? Should we call the word of man the word of God? We do not know your definition of flawless. If you mean a different spelling or a different grammatical construction or the Old English type font or differences that do not affect the true meaning of a passage, then NO, it  does not have to be so! But if you mean a corruption of the text, then Yes, it is not God's word. We limit the word of God to only one published English Bible today, simply because all the other modern bibles are corruptions (intentionally so).<b>  – Evans<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
</b><i>Thy word is <b>very pure</b>: therefore thy servant <b>loveth </b>it . . .  </i><b>--Ps. 119:140<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
28. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?<br>
<br>
 <br>
<br>
            Answer: </b>No, they and you are liars because God says all men are liars (Rom. 3:4). Therefore, both your and their statements must be tested. In fact, you  might be a liar for interpreting their word "meanest" as "poorest" considering Webster's options. Would you say the translators were including  corruptions like  the JW bible into the category of being the word of God? Do you  consider the JW bible the word of God? Romans 3:4 also says "Let God be true." Why don't you let him, seeing that you are a liar, according to His word? <b>-- Evans <br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . Let God be true, but every man a liar . . .  </i><b>-- Rom. 3:4<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<i>            . . . faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.</i>  <b>-- Rom. 10:17<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
<b>29. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
            <b>Answer: </b>Yes, I certainly do. Yet, I do not believe the Greek and Hebrew that they did not use are the word of God.  Do you know what portions they used and what portions they did not use? And from  which Greek? Oh, you are going to check up on infallible and inspired history or what infallible Prof. Whachamahamaczysz says? Take your time. <b>-- Evans<br>
<br>
</b> <br>
<br>
     . . . That your faith should <b>not stand in the wisdom of men</b> . . .<b>  -- 1 Cor. 2:5<br>
<br>
</font></b></html>

--=====================_24833631==_.ALT--
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.