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

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 revisions 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. Its what I use. But then, what is your definition of inspiration? Will you reason from the scriptures or from your contemporary Bible correctors? -- Evans

. . . 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)?

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 I dictating to them after the fact. We cannot speak for them and neither can they speak for us. Printed Bibles did not precede the Gutenburg (1450-56) in Germany. England's first printing press was in 1477. 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 the 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?

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 is recognized as scripture, being placed not in the O.T. nor the N.T. but in between. That was so designated very clearly.  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!

What is 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?

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 Greeks and modern Hebrew? Did God author the differences in the Greek texts? Where did the differences come from?  God?  -- Evans

Fore 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?

Probably because he did not extend His supervision to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them with out 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?  -- 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!

***

Do you really believe their notes were inspired? Which ones? The King James translators did not realize the extent of their work, as demonstrated in their preface. They were unusually honest and modest, trying to show what choices were available.  But in every language, dictionaries gives multiple meanings to a word. Do you think that the translators were calling in question their own work as you are? -- Evans

Do not preachers do the same explanations in the pulpit, without changing the word of God? Don't you make  any distinctions between textual errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also?

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

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

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

. . .  SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration . . .   -- 2 Tim 3:16

9. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?

Do you really believe these things were inspired? If not, perhaps, that is the reason. Then again, what American is interested in James of Scotland? Was it removed to save money on printing? Paper? To have competitive pricing? What do you think?  -- 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?

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 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?

Italics were included, not because they were "necessary," but  because the translators were trying to be honest by showing that the underlying word was either not there but implied in English, the way we speak, OR 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?

Most of the so called archaic language is not really archaic, as shown by Laurance 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 preachers job to be apt to teach and give the sense of  a given  passage.  It is not a Christians 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 websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write (sic) their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?

Good question, but it does not apply to me. I just recently and publicly came out against  Christians copyrighting their endeavors. Perhaps, not for that reason, but I had plenty of other reasons. My motto is freely received, freely given.  So, I do find fault with the modern copy- righted Bible practice without having 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)

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 verse and chapter, especially when one does not know which TR to title 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"?

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 travelled 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 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?

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 corrected much of this supposed translation Greek thought to be on the basis of a comparison with the Compluensian Polygot  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 the critical text is in classical Greek.

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

So much for the rest of the story!  -- Evans

. . . 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.)

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 that "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 . 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.)

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 as you deal in doubtful disputations?   -- Evans

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

19. 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"?

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 of the Peshitta) says, Saint John and etc. You don't believe that these men were saints?  Eh?  -- Evans

. . . called to be SAINTS . . . 1 Cor. 1:2

Preach the word . . .  -- 2 Tim. 4:2

20. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under  inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration,  is the very first edition with all their thousands of  errors? (KJV- 1611 edition;  BoM - 1831 edition)

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 supercedes 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

21. 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?

KJV 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 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

22. 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?

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,  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 preface 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

23 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) ;

It would be rather hard for them to distinguish between 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 their 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

23 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-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell  because hades is thrown into hell after  judgement: Rev 20:14)

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, why do you not make 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

23 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 were none exist? *** 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          -- Evans

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

24. 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.)

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

25. 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"?

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, Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th  century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century).

We can agree that Acts 9:6 has no Greek support, due to the scarcity of the Western Tests 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, Beta, 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

26. 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)

How can we trust you, who ignore 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, which ever 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. 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

27. 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"?

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 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 (ELOHIM) 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

28. 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?

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

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

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?  -- Evans

Romans 3:4 also says "Let God be true." Why don't you let him, being that you are a liar, according to His word?

. . . 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

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

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

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

Which Hebrew and which Greek and which English? Everything that "UNDERLIES" the KJB's English is not Hebrew and Greek, if you have researched the translator's preface. I don't see where the KJB English needs correcting. Do you believe the Greek manuscripts can correct other Greek Manuscripts? Do you believe the Greek can correct the original  Hebrew quotes, since they are different?  Are you prepared for some examples? Do you believe that something imperfect can correct something else that is not perfect? Is that the first law of Stash Pennons? -- Evans

All scripture is . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof,  for CORRECTION . . .  -- 2 Tim.  3: 16

32. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and  Greek texts from which it was translated?

No! Do you know which Hebrew and Greek that they used? I see no need to correct the "original" Hebrew and Greek.  I could not begin to even know how to do it. I believe the scriptures are supposed to correct us not us the scriptures.

Let the Greeks correct their own Greek. From reports from our missionaries to Greece and the testimony of a Greek national, the Greeks don't even know what the Greek means. On the other hand,  I see no valid reason to correct the KJB  English. -- Evans

. . .  for CORRECTION . . . That the man of God may be perfect . . . -- 2 Tim. 3:16,17

. . . ye have perverted the words of the living God . . . -- Jer. 23:36

33. Is ANY translation "inspired"?  Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?

Yes, the King James Bible is inspired and infallible. Its even ALIVE! Even Quick and powerful.  It even discerns evil intentions. Did Jesus say, "Blessed are they that hear the word of God and correct it." or did He say something else (Luke 11:28).   -- Evans

ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration . . .  -- 2 Tim. 3:16

34. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"?  [2 Tim. 3:16]  WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of  the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701,  1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?

Yes, the KJB is "scripture." Yes, it is given by inspiration of God as is all scripture that is scripture.  When it was originally given, it was destined to be preserved as inspired scripture, whether copied or whether translated . It was not all written at the same time nor preserved at the same time, however. It would be silly to desire an uninspired authority,  though we understand that  some do.

Unfortunately, it was corrupted by copyists, scribes, heretics, and printers  over the years and even cut up and burned, but God managed to recreate it. Of course he allowed its  spelling and punctuation and grammar to be standardized. You might  say that He inspired it, then refined it in other languages, which is all part of the preserve- tin process, the mechanics of  which we do not need to know but must believe did take place as He has promised.   -- Evans

But the word of the LORD endureth for ever . . .  -- 1 Peter 1:25

35. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

Shucks, I don't know that He did say that  there or anywhere. Unless the Hebrew has a Greek IOTA (jot) in it. If you know,  please tell me. Did you know that Hebrew is the language of Caanan? -- Evans

. . . his truth endureth to ALL generations . . .  -- Ps. 100:5

. . . he that hath my word, let him speak my word FAITHFULLY . . . -- Jer. 23:28

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

The same place that the Bible teaches that He would perfectly preserve the Greek and the Hebrew,  which from all the talk from bible correctors He has not. In fact they can't even find a complete Bible in Greek or Hebrew.  Imagine that!  In fact, where in the Bible do you get your calling to do what you are doing? Where in the Bible do you get your theology or doctrine for the things that you believe about inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation? Where in the Bible do you get your view of errors in all Bibles? Does the fact that Jesus said that the scriptures cannot be broken mean anything at all to you?  -- Evans

Every word of God is pure . . . Proverbs 30:5

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition . . . -- Mark 7:13

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

No. Only bible correctors lost them. We believe in the doctrine of preservation.  We King James onlies believe that heaven and earth may pass away but not God's word. We also believe that His word would not depart from God's people, their seed, or their seed's seed, or their seed's seed's seed. We also believe that His word will endure forever. And we also believe that the scriptures cannot be broken. What do you believe? -- Evans

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

He that  . . . receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken . . . -- John 12:48

38. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.]  Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?

No. You are a liar for misquoting their claim. They claimed to translate from  the original "TONGUES." No, you are a liar for misleading folks to think they claimed to have the original Autographs.  -- Evans

. . . add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar . . .  --  Pro.  30:6

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

No! The original Greek Autographs were lost a long time before that. Probably, 18 to 19 centuries ago.  There never has been  found a one volume, (complete Bible) Greek manuscript in one piece intact. The Greek language was not lost, just changed a bit.  Now, God may have it somewhere, but certainly you or your Bible correcting friends have not found it nor know where it is at not could you even tell it if it was right in front of you.  How different it is for the Bible believer! He possesses the scripture!  -- Evans

. . . That from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures . . . -- 2 Tim 3:15

40. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

Protestant Reformation in which country? It sure seems like it with all the Catholic errors those Protestants retained. If the Reformation started in Germany, as we think, they did not have the word of God in German yet. Oh, but you are thinking of England, weren't you?

To answer your question, during the Reformation very few people had even a portion of the word of God. For all practical purposes those, who had Tyndale's, The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, had the word of God without intentional corruption, although a one man  translation and  careless translations were Bibles in transition, in need of refining, much like the church in the Book of Acts.  -- Evans

. . . I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of  bread . . . but of hearing the words of the LORD  . . . they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. -- Amos 8:11,12

41. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant?  [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].

None of them in England. The same as New Tribes translation into Swahili. First attempts are good expedients, when you have nothing else  but are in need of refinement. After the refinement process is complete, you don't go backwards as the modern English translations have done.  Neither do you substitute an inferior Bible for that which is perfect.  -- Evans

. . . That they might understand the scriptures . . . -- Luke 24:45

. . . they have kept my word . . . John 17:6

42. 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?

They did not yet have "God's infallible and preserved word to the English speaking people" or there would have been no need for the KJB. They did have the unrefined word of  God, which awaited purifying, and they did have the gospel to get saved. They had more of the word of God than is available in our modern translations. They also did not have our modern translations dumbing down their Christianity as we have today, resulting in the falling away that precedes the tribulation period.   -- Evans

. . . if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  -- Isa 8:20

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

Nope! Same questioning - Same reasoning  39, 40, and 41. What they had was a Bible in transition, awaiting refinement. They all essentially were Tyndale's Bible.   Forgetting the things that are behind, we are not concerned about the word of God for yesterday; we are concerned about  the word of God for today, the King James Bible!   -- Evans

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth . . . -- James 1:18

44. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of  God"? [1 Peter 1:23]

Impossible scenario but they could get saved by reading an incorruptible portion  of the word of God in an ordinary commentary or a gospel tract. Still, a  distinction must be made, regarding the word of God as a whole and portions  of the word of God. Before the word of God as a whole was completed, it was still the word of God in part.  Nevertheless, it is the incorruptible Gospel that saves a man from his sins. Whether preached or read!  The Bible's statements regarding itself are predicated on the fact that the scriptures are possessed. -- Evans

. . . the place of scripture which he read  . . . -- Acts 8:35

45. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?

Who do you know that believes the KJB can correct the inspired originals? Who do you know that knows what the inspired originals look like? Who do you know that could tell if they had the Original Autographs if they found them.

How would they go about correcting the original Autographs? And how would the Original Autographs go about correcting the KJB? Nevertheless, no, the inspired autographs did not need correction, but everyone of your extant Greek manuscripts seem to need correction, judging by the large amount of variants between them and the large employment of textual critics.   -- Evans

. . . thy word is settled in heaven . . . -- Ps. 119:89

46. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:  but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will  of man:  but holy men of God translated as  they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

I would not restrict the moving of and by the Holy Spirit to the writers or  the translators, since men today are moved BY the Spirit to do many things as in 1 Cor. 12:1-13 a dozen times (BY).  Methinks you are giving the word "move" an inordinate emphasis.  (Job 2:3). -- Evans

In him we live, and MOVE and have our being -- Acts 17:28

47. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?

Some have said that the printers used an upside down "h" instead of a right side up "h" or an upside down "y" instead of a right side up "y" and that would fall into the category of a printer's  error not a translation error, but interestingly, the passage's meaning is not affected by the different pronouns, as "he" would also be proper as  a modifier of "every man" as well as "ye." You must be desperate to find errors in the king James Bible.  -- Evans

. . . We HAVE also a more sure word of prophecy . . . -- 2 Pet. 1:19

48. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

Both readings are correct. One uses a plural, the other uses a singular plural as was common in English at one time.  Even one of our Christian songs uses "all my sin."    -- Evans

. . . one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law . . . -- Matt. 5:18

49. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?

Oxford, Cambridge, not sure about Nelson. You, if you can get yourself a print shop and want to do it.  -- Evans

The Lord gave the word: great was the company that published it. -- Ps. 68:11

50. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

Again, in any attempt to copy or create or recreate a document, there is a refinement process that must take place, unless DIRECT inspiration (as opposed to preserved inspiration) is involved. How that refinement process works is God's business, the same way as the mechanics of inspiration and preservation are His business and not ours.

You have cited several of these, which are called editions. They are not revisions. Personally, I use the 1769, and that is the one that I am concerned about. Yes, it is inerrant.  I prefer the terms inspired and infallible in that what constitutes an error is an endless debate, i.e., English grammar and spelling and punctuation,  America and England are still not able to get together on these things.  -- Evans

I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth . . . -- Dan. 10:21

51. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life?  [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs.  128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]

It doesn't bother me a bit, since Jesus cited the O.T. to call those opponents of his "gods." Now, in case ye do not know it, a god is a sovereign.

Odd that you would use 20th century documentation to prove such a charge of homosexuality to disparage the Authorized Bible. One would think that you would document something juicy from the early 17th century. There is plenty of counter point documentation which contain James' own words against homosexuality, as well as a neat little story of one of his enemies, who sought to disgrace James after his DEATH. Shall we now talk about the Lesbians on the modern version committees? Or do we wish to stop being garbage collectors?

Oh, before I forget, God does not " wait" on anyone. He makes decisions in His time. It is we that are to wait on the Lord. And , yes, if the fact that the heart of the King is in the hand of the LORD (if that is inspired scripture), yes, God engaged and used James to refine the word of God. -- Evans

. . . the LORD . . . turned the heart of the king of Syria . . . -- Ezra 6:22

52. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work?  [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind  the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?

I would not even contend that you are "led"  by God in your slimy garden of  Eden type questions, none of which are predicated on any doctrine found in the word of God. It is not my business to judge, who is  led by God and who is not. Was the adulterer and murderer, David, led by God? Was the polygamous Solomon led by God? Draw your own conclusions and then prove to me how you arrive at them.

It would only give those who pervert the  word, in that context, the wrong impression. Frankly, I think Sodomites is a much better word, even better than "temple prostitutes."  Nevertheless, I do not get my views about the Bible from either secular or religious history as you do. -- Evans

. . . I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor . . .  I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith . . . -- Jer. 23:30, 31

53. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?

Obviously, you need to go back to Sunday school. It does not say "dead" people woke up in the morning. It says "they arose" early in the morning. They that arose found the "they" that had been smitten, even the "they," who were all "dead corpses."  Context man, context .  It is incorrect to quote the Bible as saying, "there is no God." you must examine the context to find out that the "fool" says that.  A course in remedial Bible study may help you.  -- Evans

. . . if a man love me, he will keep my words . . . He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings . . . -- John 14:24

54. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?

Yes,  if Christ was Jesus last name.  (1 Cor 3:11) Iaisous  HO Christos

And yes, if  Iscariot was Judas' (son of Simon) last name. Mark 14:10  -  Judas HO Iskariotais

Don't  bother to check the NKJV or the NIV, they do not partake in your nitpicking here. Would you like some more names? -- Evans

. . . they speak a vision out of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.  -- Jer. 23:16

55. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.  Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.  Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."  As clearly under stood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.  We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.  As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."

But why no objection nor appeal to the underlying Greek? Why no fault finding in a paraphrase? Why different standards for the NIV as opposed to the KJB? Why would you want an English translation that corrects the Greek? I think the problem with your modern reader is that the natural man receiveth not the things of God, neither can he know them. Three guesses why?

Berry's Interlinear states it word for word:

"Our mouth has been opened to you, Corinthians, our heart has been expanded. Ye are not straightened in us, but ye are straightened in your bowels; but the same [as] recompense, (as to children I speak,) be expanded also ye. "  -- Evans

For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word and heard it? . . . I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. -- Jer 23:18, 21

56. 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?

I can only find one oath in the records, which you cite. And Matthew 14:7 says, Whereupon he promised with an oath [singular in Greek and English  NKJV and NIV - (meth horkou)]. Would you be so kind to show me the other oaths he made to her? Isn't this a little wild after your NIV  departure from the Greek in number 54? -- Evans

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it . . . -- Deut. 4:2

57. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8?  [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

Who needs to go to the Greek, when you have a Webster's 1828 handy? The word is a Saxon word signifying worth-ship; the state of worth and worthiness. The connotation that you want to contradict the King James Bible with is not the 1st or 2nd or even the 3rd Webster 1828 choice. Note under the noun, "worship":

1.  Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness

2.  A title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and others of respectable character.

My father desires your worship's company. Shakspeare

3.  A term of ironical respect. -- Evans

How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophecy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart . . . -- Jer 23:26

58. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV?  [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

What if I already know that "itself" is the Greek "AUTO" and is neuter. Like auto-matic is  selfo-matic.

I am beginning to think that you are afraid of the Greek. Now, let me see if I understand this. You have made a rule that the Holy Spirit cannot be called  an "it" or "itself" and you want everyone to obey your theological rule.  If that correct, what is the basis for your rule?

Do you also have a rule for MAN being called an "it" or "itself," for the KJB and both the NKJB and NIV all use the word itself for the creature (creation in the NIV and NKJV). The KJb says, "Because the creature ITSELF also shall be delivered . . .  Romans 8:20 When I knock on your door, and you ask, Who is IT? I might reply, "IT is I."  Merely a nuance of our language.

The NIV and NKJV with the KJB call Jesus an IT in Rev. 12:4. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he may to devour her child  the moment  IT was born.

You might note that the in Matthew 14:26, the NKJV and NIV say, about the disciples quote, "IT is a GHOST " (SPIRIT in the KJB). What does Jesus say, "IT is I"  (verse 27). What do the disciples say,  "If  IT is you" (verse 28). So Jesus is an IT!

Methinks you should make some more rules to cover these irreverent, inconsistent  situations. Yawn!  -- Evans

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.  -- Col. 2:8

59. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]

I don't think it supports a Friday crucifixion, but tell me, what kind of a Sabbath was it? A Sabbath year? A Sabbath month? A Sabbath week maybe. A Sabbath hour? A Sabbath moment? Well, I am out of choices. Do you have any others choices, so that I may decide? What commandment do you think this Sabbath was referring to in Luke 23:56?

. . . strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers . . . --  2 Tim. 2:14

60. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]

Well, bless your heart,  you did not know that "meat" in the Bible meant "food" and flesh meant "meat?" And you did not know that sitting at a table at a wedding feast (NKJV) was for the purpose of eating. Come on, your putting me on? Or are you?  -- Evans

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. -- 2 Tim. 2:23

61. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"?  [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]

Of course he was. He was also a cigar smoking theater attendee. Still, whether a Bible corrector or no, Spurgeon just corrected Tyndale's, The Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop's Bible, and the King James Bible. Perhaps, he was just mistaken?

ELPIDI, the dat. sing. fem. is used a number of times in the N.T. and is preceded by an EK, an EN, or an EP, when "in hope" is meant. Perhaps you should check this out in Acts 2:26, Rom 4:18, Rom 5:2, Rom 8:20, Rom 12:2, Rom 15:13, 1 Cor 9:10 (twice), Eph 4:4, Titus 1:2. These prefixes are curiously absent from Rom. 8:24. Are you sure that this was not merely a theological assumption? Why don't you go back and rub your Spurgeon statue 3 times and make a wish?   -- Eavns

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. -- Ps. 146:3

62. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap.  A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved"  in John. 3:16]."?

Well, we have already went over this AGAPAO/PHILEO thing, but who is Norman Pickering? A pope that you parrot and adore? Are you a Pickeringite?

J. Frank Norris was wrong about a lot of things, namely, cussing out his choir (ref. Al Janney). He made a mistake in shooting a man to death, I suppose he could have made other mistakes. One mistake that he may have made here is listening to Enzminger, who liked the RV/ASV.

According to your NKJV and NIV, he was wrong about Acts 26:20. Also, according to Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, The RV/ASV Bible, and the RSV Bible, he was wrong. Now, don't you think he was a bit out of his league, when he said that? Still, when Norris was thinking right, he did not allow anything but the KJB to be taught at the Norris Bible institute. I like their statement, don't you?

"We believe that God's Word is preserved for us today in the Authorized King James Version (1611), and that it is the God-honored text of the Reformation. We believe that inspiration without preservation would  meaningless. We reject all other translations and paraphrases of the Word of God and subscribe to and use only the KJV (1611 or its equivalent in any language) in all of our activities."

Obviously,  Norris was pushing to the limits the word KAI, which can mean "and" or an "explanatory and" or in other words an "even." It is so used that way in scripture, but no one seems to agree with Norris on this but you.

What is rather interesting though, is that if  "KAI"  was an "even" in your other passage, John 3:5, It would say born of water even of Spirit, the water symbolic of the Spirit, something that arch Bible Corrector Bob Ross believes is the case here, which would make the KJB more correct than its rivals. Isn't this fun? -- Evans

. . . why are ye subject to . . .  the commandments and doctrines of men? -- Col. 2:20-22

63. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant.  The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"?  [Difficulties in the Bible,  page 17]

You keep using the word "lying, " which means intentional false hoods. Something that is wrong or untrue is not necessarily a lie. He was mistaken, of course, but in the Bible sense, he was a liar as all men are

liars. President John Adams can be documented as having a problem with Bible believing Christians believing the KJB as absolute. If you post an answer to this critique of your questions with your e-mail address, I will post you some of it. Others have documented those, who believed their Bible was infallible in the previous generation.

The Orthodox Creed of 1679 was written by a group of General Baptists in England, with a desire to emphasize doctrines that were held in common by  all Bible-believing Christians. The Following is what they believed about the Bible: "And by the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mothers, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day. All  which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."

Thank you Jesus! Praise de Lawd. Hallelujah!  -- Evans

. . . teaching for doctrines the commandments of men . . . -- Matt. 15:9

If a man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our LORD Jesus Christ . . .  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about QUESTIONS and STRIFES OF WORDS . . . Perverse disputings of men of CORRUPT minds, and destitute of truth . . . 1 Tim. 6:3-5

64. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek?  [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]

I don't know? What is the complete quote. What do you think after playing in the sandbox with these Garden of Eden questions? Certainly, his ideas

are no worse than your canonizing of unknown Hebrew and Greek of uncertain origin, invisible and inaccessible. Hebrew to the Hebrews and Greek to the Greeks and English to the English, and we will all be fine.   -- Evans

. . . continue thou in the things which  thou hast learned and hast been assured  of, knowing of who thou hast learned them . . .  -- 2 Tim. 3:14

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

God is supernatural, is He not? Did He have something to do with it or nothing to do with it? Was God in any of it or completely divorced from it?  We have already talked about God moving people, even the lost, to do things.  Do you know for sure, when God moves or leads anyone to do anything? Has God led the modern translators supernaturally in correcting the KJB? Has He even led them influentially to correct the KJB? What is your proof or basis for saying so? Has God led you supernaturally to generate these 64 questions? No? If not,  please shut up!     -- Evans

Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. -- 2 Tim. 3:7