Answering the Critics!
This page is specifically devoted to questions that were asked of us by a ministry called CAnswersTV. Each question is obvisously based upon an agnostic view of the Bible without having any belief in a preserved, pure, and perfect Word of God today. This is the first step downwards in unbelief. We believe that even with proof and evidence, many ministers are beyond conviction, and we would not waste our time unless we felt this may help those who are struggling in their faith about God's Word. Many scholars and preachers we provide evidence to in favor of the KJV, will use the typical "straw man" argument and ask a question(s) as to defer and get off the topic of the original evidence presented. They "minister quesions" as I Timothy 1:4 reveals, rather than ministering faith! But for the sake of others, we will answer these questions, one by one. May the Lord grant you an honest heart as we answer the skeptics here. We will provide two answers to each question, one from a Preachers Biblical response as if behind the pulpit, and the other from a more scholarly approach.
Question #1 from CAnswersTV: 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 #1 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Why are you asking me? Ask God, He's the one who did it! Have you never read Ecclesiates 8:4 where God says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power, and who may say unto him, What doest thou"? Quit asking childish questions and believe what God said. That King would be King James by the way, and quit asking "what doest thou"! Perhaps you should question those who taught you to doubt God's Word and His methods of preserving His Word instead of throwing out doubts to God's people.
Scholar Response: Because God knew by His foreknowledge that English would be the Universal Language in our time and it is by far the easiest language to learn. His finished work in 1611 with various reprints in English Grammar and spelling has given us a refined and pure text as God promised, and He chose to use this language as to reach many more souls in His Wisdom. The World Site Educational Agency provides the following explaination showing the English language is used more in all aspects of business, internet, and education worldwide. One does not have to question God, saying "what doest thou" when you understand that God chose the English language for this purpose.
After the 1611 King James Version was printed, along with a refining process of a few reprints with grammar and spelling changes, reformation and light spread worldwide with the fruits of millions upon millions of souls saved. We experienced the missionary age of which the America's sent out missionaries with the King James Version translated into other languages where English was not read or spoken. However, even in countries like India, China, South America and many others, hundreds of millions of people speak and read English. For those who do not, many millions of Bibles were translated into their own tongues from the Authorized King James Version. So if you need to ask God, "what doest thou" and to figure out what He is doing, look at the fruits and results of the King James Version and compare that to the results of modern textual criticism. So English is the chosen language by God for today, for Hebrew, Greek and Latin are now considered dead and unused languages. Thus God chose to make sure we have a prefect and pure translation in English, for it's now the worlds universal language.
Question #2 from CAnswersTV: 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 #2 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: What a silly question! Once again, ask God and quit asking "what doest thou"! God was more concerned in preserving His Word, using men and proper translations from the correct Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts. I'm sure God knew there would be a refining process from the machines and printers, and indeed there was. Have ye never read in the Psalms, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times"? Psalm 12:6 KJV. What part of purified seven times do you not understand to ask if God would make sure the machines and printers were moved by his hand? Your laser and ink jet printers need ink and toner do they not? Perhaps ask God about the machines and printers, we would be curious to hear His response.
Scholar Response: The first print of the original 1611 King James Version did indeed have printer errors, typo's, and was also in time in need of English Grammar changes. But these are all "reprints" without any doctrinal changes such as in the modern "revisions". Remember REPRINTS, NOT REVISIONS! Even in Psalm 12:6-7 as seen below out of the original 1611 King James Version, the doctrine, content and message are the same as today's KJV versions with simple grammar changes due to the changes in the spelling of English words. Example as seen below: Wordes is now spelled Words. Keepe is now spelled Keep. Walke is now spelled Walk.
Understanding the difference between "revisions" and "reprints" for spelling and grammar is critical and also can answer the following three questions also presented by CAnswersTV, which we title Questions, #3, #4, #5.
Notice our friends question with the wording! They are presuming that these are "revisions" rather than "reprints". So yes, the 1611 KJV and the following reprints are inspired by God and considered scripture as it was being purified "seven times" as a pure and perfect text. Spelling, typo's, grammar and various reprints do not constitute "revisions" nor do they affect doctrinal changes, or change God's hand in preserving His Word as promised in Psalm 12:6-7 and Proverbs 22:12. Critics use this "straw man" argument in an attempt to claim that because of the "reprints" that no version can be inspired nor perfect, and will raise many questions to cast doubt upon God's Word. They should question the modern versions attacking the Blood and Diety of Christ!
A friend bought a King James Version in the year 1983, over 30 years ago on his way to Bible College. A page was torn apart due to age, wear and tear. He copied that same page from our same KJB Bible and taped it in. Perhaps if it was a Perfect, Pure and Preserved Word of God, that God would not have allowed for the page to tear. Wow, it must not be perfect. It even had one page with a printing press error or a smudge mark, where God was spelled Gol, or Go with the last letter barely visible, just in one place where the ink obviously did not come through as the letter d. He used a pen and finished what started the letter d. He knew this was either a machine and ink error, or smudge from a raindrop, or even from wear and tear. He did not confuse it with questioning God's Holy Preserved Word. This is a very elementary question here. We can assure you that every King James Version bought today, will all say the same thing, even as God commands it to be so.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment". I Cornithinas 1:10 KJV
Watch our video below about the confusion in reading all the various bible versions.
Question #6 from CAnswersTV: Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities?
Answer #6 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: I don't know, ask them. They were scholars! Scholars do those type of things. Perhaps you should focus on the final product, "purified seven times"!
The final text is what was given by God, even our KJV that we bought about 40 years ago has marginal notes in the middle. Your question is a "straw man" argument that lacks any relevance to God's Perfect, Pure and Preserved Word for us today. Why do teachers still use chalk? Why do printers still need ink and toner? Have ye never read in the scripture, "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes"? II Timothy 2:23 KJV.
Scholar Response: Scholars write everywhere and on everything. Even when we use the Nestle's Greek NA/27 to compare to the Textus Receptus, along with our Bible, we write all over them and in them. Margins, notes, references galore, none of these change the divine text my friends, they are just notes, no relevance here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #7 from CAnswersTV: If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates! If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Answer #7 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: I don't know, ask them. Ask God. Ask a priest. Have ye never read the scripture, "But avoid foolish questions....for they are unprofitable and vain"? Titus 3:9 KJV.
Scholar Response: There were 47 scholars of world renown working on the King James translation team. Whether they knew the hand of God was upon their work or not is not relevant, the work itself being overseen by the hand of God, that is relevant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #8 from CAnswersTV: 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."?
Answer #8 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: We alreay answered about the marginal notes. Our KJV has "The Epistle Dedicatory", others copies do not. So what? What's the relevance? Another "straw man" argument that lacks relevance to God's Preserved Word. The Apocrypha was never included as Canon and placed between the Old and New Testaments. It was rejected by the Church and never quoted by the Apostles or Jesus Christ. In all later reprints it was removed. The modern versions however, include the text within the Old and New Testaments! Did you tell that to your students that Dr. Answer?
Scholar Answer: Mr. Preacher said it right and I would add that we should focus on what we have today! By using this "straw man" argument, it could lead believers to think that because it was included in the original 1611, (although not as Canon), one would accept these Non-Canon writings as Holy Writ today, of which they are considered as such in many modern versions. Simply put, The Apocrypha was never accepted as scripture, nor ever will be by true believers. The World Church and Popish authorities however do accept the heretical teachings contained therein of which should concern believers as to why many modern versions now include it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #9 from CAnswersTV: 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 #9 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Because the KJV translators had access to many more manuscripts than we have today and the TR Textus Receptus was not the only Greek Text used. There was Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, The Old Latin (157 A.D.), The (Old Syriac) Peshitta 150 A.D., The Gallic 177 A.D., Armenian, Gothic, Palestine, Martin Luther's German in 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew's 1537, Great Bible 1539, Geneva 1560, and hundreds of other resources. What a miracle of preservation in God's refining process of using 47 of the most renown scholars, fluent in all these languages, for God to use and provide for us such a miraculous text! Have ye never read the scripture, "Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever"? Job 19:23-24 KJV.
Scholar Response: Mr. Preacher has a point, bit I would add something here. A perfect example of the KJV correcting the TR (Stephanus 1550 Greek or any Greek Text) is in Acts 12:4 whereas the TR has the reading "Passover". My fellow scholars translated the word as "Easter" which is unique to the King James reading, and is actually the correct word, for the "Passover" had already occured, that is if you read verse three of Acts chapter twelve. Watch the video below for solid evidence on this reading and how the KJV can and does correct many Greek and Hebrew readings.
Question #10 from CAnswersTV: If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
Answer #10 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher/Scholar Response: Finally, a good and honest question worthy of a response. Let's look at the italics and give an example or two of why the KJV used italics along with many modern versions also.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live".
Deuteronomy 8:3 KJV
Notice that "word" is in italics and many will question if the word belongs or should be included. Firstly, the KJV translators were honest enough to place such words in italics whereas the ESV, NIV and many other versions do not even disclose such. Secondly, who is to say God did not oversee this process also, for words in italics are often needed to understand the Hebrew and Greek meanings of a sentence. The KJV is not alone in showing italics. However, let's see God's hand of preservation from the words of Jesus Himself as he quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". Matthew 4:4 KJV. Guess what folks? The Greek word ῥῆμα pronounced rhēma is in the Greek Text, in both Matthew and Luke's Gospels, and it is not in italics. If the "word" does not belong in Deuteronomy 8:3, then why does Jesus quote it? The answer is that even words in italics can be considered scripture from the mouth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Let's look at another example....
"I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name". Isaiah 65:1 KJV.
The words "them that" and "for me", along with "them that" again are in italics in the Hebrew. However the Apostle Paul quoted this verse of which it was written in the Greek and the so called missing words in italics are there, in God's Word.
"But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me". Romans 10:20 KJV. "Them" is in the Greek and MATCHES the italics in Hebrew! Is not our God a great and mighty God?
Another example is in Deuteronomy 25:4 whereas, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn". The "corn" is in italics, so how would we know it is corn? Simple faith will do, but for the critics, they must "see" the evidence as Thomas needed to see the wounds in our Lord's hands. Here's your evidence of "the corn" in the Greek!
"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of
the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen"?
I Corinthians 9:9 KJV
Once again, the Corn is in the Greek that matches the Corn in italics from the Hebrew! Have Faith my brothers and Sisters in Christ! These are just a few examples of hundreds of such examples. In fact, some of the Ancient Papyrus Manuscripts being discovered, such as P46/P66, etc, show that some N.T.words in italics are actually shown in these oldest manuscripts, dated 175A.D.-250A.D. (photo evidence coming soon).
Italics are simply words that are already in the sentence and meaning of what God's intention in the language wanted, such as an anology of saying in Hebrew "Been There, Done That". A KJV translation would read
"I have been there and already done that". Same meaning and no doctrinal changes.
Italics are necessary and in the KJV consider them also inspired by God as his preserved Word. Example..
"Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man"! John 19:5 KJV.
We all know Pilate said this, and in fact this verse would not make sense without the word "Pilate". It's still God's Word folks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #11 from CAnswersTV: In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Answer #11 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Oh come on Mr. Answer Man! For a ministry with a title of "Answers" in it, you sure have a lot of questions. Is it not your job to preach and teach God's Word? The individual archaic words consist of less than 0.001 % of God's Word and your question is a typical "straw man" argument. Have ye never read the scripture, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine"? II Timothy 4:2 KJV. Do your job and preach, teach and expound the way of God more perfectly. You justify leaving God's Preserved Word over a knat? For someone who has gone to Bible School, been to Seminary, studied Greek and Hebrew, and then you question your own ability to teach an English Word? What a shame! God forbid that your poor, uneducated students and congregation should be able to comprehend such ancient archaic English words, but the Greek and Hebrew, hey no problem, as you whip out your corrupted Egyptian Greek Text, you hyprocrite.
Scholar Response: Mr. Preacher seems a bit blunt at times, but at least he is correct. I discern Mr. Preacher is a bit ..."rude in speech, but not in knowledge..." (II Corinthians 11:6 KJV), but at least he is in good company. Give him a pass, I think he's a bit stirred up over you preachers. Thus I will attempt to give a more civilized approach and answer from a scholar's point of view. It would be this. The King James Version has a built in dictionary within the text or verses themselves for many of the archaic words. I could give many such examples, but for the sake of time and space, we will link a video below that goes over this very topic. But the Preacher is right, do your job and teach, if teaching is what your called to do. It's your job to teach, no excuses sir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #12 from CAnswersTV: Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Answer #12 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Have ye never read in the scripture that, "the word of God is not bound"?. II Timothy 2:9 KJV. I could care less what other websites and companies do charge for or don't charge for. Once again, another "straw man" question that lacks relevance to the King James Version. The KJV has no ownership or copyrights, BECAUSE GOD'S TRUE WORD IS FREE! Yes, there are copyrights on maps, notes, and different publishers, but the TEXT OF THE KJV ITSELF IS FREE OF CHARGE! Now I know for you bible agnostics, this does cause a bit of foaming at your mouth, but it's a fact and the whole world knows it. Your modern perverted bibles may have 100 years of money making greed and corruption only to produce another perversion worse than the first one for another 100 years. The KJV itself being "Public Domain" tells a story all unto itself and we even have a photo below for your viewing pleasure.
Scholar Response: Mr. Preachers is correct and for this I will recommend a book from the 90's from a friend who exposes the modern translators, their beliefs, and motives behind their companies. I did notice a straw man statement by CAnswers in saying, quote, "If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible"? The issue is copyright(s) on God's Word, (or the lack thereof as in the KJV) not published books about God's Word. Very weak argument with a sneaky "get off the tracks" straw man approach. Not a relevant question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #13 from CAnswersTV: 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 #13 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: We already answered the TR/KJV question but now the real fruits have come out with the "translation worship" question. Usually we get this question from the little minions of teachers and scholars who have been taught to make claims that KJV Bible believers worship a book and are in a cult! This is a last ditch "straw man" attempt when no solid evidence can be presented to favor their arguments. Many minions learn this from their "masters and scholars" of Malachi 2:12 and repeat this phrase faithfully, and many times with filthy language. It's an act of desperation!
When was the last time you walked down a back alley and found a group of people with hoodies on, burning incense to a 30 foot statue of a King James Bible? What a immature and childish statement coming from the angry blind minions. In fact now would be a good time to watch our Minion Video below!
Scholar Response: I do concur with our Preachers response of the immaturity of such a statement. But as a scholar myself, I noticed our Preachers reference to Malachi 2:12 of which the King James Version mentions "masters and scholars" and can hardly not notice that all modern version translators omitted their own titles and callings in this verse. Could it be as our Beloved Brother Dean Burgon said, that "they are beyond the reach of conviction" or correction? Perhaps even to hide their own titles?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #14 from CAnswersTV: 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?
Answer #14 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Wow! Someone needs some brushing up on Manuscript Evidence! A half dozen 10th Century Manuscripts? Wow is all we can say. What a dishonor to honest Biblical Scholarship! We shall give this to our scholar, he asked for this one! Truly as scripture states, "Yea, truth faileth...." Isaiah 59:15 KJV for we are now witnessing the cracking of our friends foundation, for the questions are getting easier, showing more ignorance, and becomming downright silly. If it were not for helping our viewers who are interested in learning, we would drop the debate right here, for it is unworthy of scholarship to respond to minions. At first we thought perhaps we were dealing with fellow scholarship here, but it's evident in their line of questioning that we are in elementary minion territory. Perhaps a copy and paste job from Dr. Jimmy? Been watching the Bart and Ernie dog and pony show?
Scholar Response: Our CAnswer friends do show an elementary knowledge of ancient manuscripts. I could hardly believe what I heard when they claimed the KJV comes from quote, "none earlier than the 10th century"! At first I though it was a joke. Manuscript Evidence 101: There are over 5366 Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and over 90% of them all, including ancient papyrus from the II Century, agree with the KJV, also called the "Majority Text"! The modern versions use a critical text with less than 10% manuscript evidence (other scholars say 1%) of which they all disagree among themselves such as Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), and other later manuscripts. Example...Colossians 1:2 in the KJV reads...
"To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be
unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ".
All modern versions omit "The Lord Jesus Christ" with both later and a minority of manuscript evidence. Should one whip out their own corrupt Nestle's Greek Apparatus NA/27 and look for yourself, it shows that the KJV is not only supported by a majority of manuscripts, but they are earlier, such as "it" which represents ALL THE OLD LATIN FROM 157 A.D.! See for yourself below inside the purple star! This one verse alone destroys the "straw man" statement that The KJV has only 10th Century Manuscript support. If it were not for helping our viewers who are interested in learning, we would also drop the debate right here, for it is unworthy of scholarship. Such a claim shows a very weak knowledge on manuscripts. The Preacher may be correct, for I myself thought at first we were dealing with fellow scholarship also. Perhaps our friends may be open to learning.
Another example...
"Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is". Mark 13:33 KJV.
Modern versions omit "pray" and water down "watch". The overwhelming manuscript evidence supports the KJV along with various "lat" Old Latin support from 157 A.D, Syriac (150 A.D.), along with many families of manuscripts well before the 10th Century. Look for yourself to the right and notice from the Greek Scholars NA/27 Apparatus. Another strange and inconsistent act of the modern translators is that even Codex Sinaiticus 350 A.D. (which we believe to be corrupt) has "pray" in their own Greek text. But when you look at their English translation box, (picture to bottom right) "pray" is missing, nor do the modern versions translate the word "pray" even thought their own Greek Manuscript Authority has it clearly shown. In others words, they are breaking their own rules of Biblical Textual Criticism in claiming they are using "older manuscripts". It's a big scam folks.
Let's go even further back in time to the II Century Papyri Manuscripts dated 175 A.D. - 250 A.D. as the oldest known manuscripts on earth that are available. Let's look at how our Lord "Jesus" is deleted by many modern versions in II Corinthians 4:6 as it reads as follows.
"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our
hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ". II Corinthians 4:6 KJV
As clearly seen below from P46, the oldest Papyri, dated 175 A.D. - 250 A.D. that Jesus Christ is shown in the Greek Papyri, whereas the modern versions still omit our "Jesus" out of this verse. Their Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) once again also has "Jesus" in their own Greek Text and again deletes "Jesus" in their English Translation even with the Greek clearly showing. Folks, if you can't see the game show going on here, we are not sure there is any hope for you. Look below for yourself! We are going to make the pictures of the manuscript evidence below real big and easy for you to see "Jesus" and Christ highlighted in red and yellow. So much for the silly 10th Century argument. It's very obvious our friends have not studied the manuscript evidence.
We must remember what started this debate to begin with. On CAnswersTV page with the debate bewteen Dr. James White and Dr. D.A. Waite, we presented manuscript evidence that shows Dr. White made a blooper on John 7:8 in claiming that "later scribes" added the word "yet" of which we disproved with P66, yet another II Century Papyri. (photo top right). We even presented a video (seen to the right) for any scholar and/or ministry such as CAnswers to simply acknowledge this error. We have yet to get a response, but rather got a list of 20 or more straw man questions. Perhaps our friends can correct the record, for after all, this false claim is on their site.
We disproved Dr. James White's comment on John 7:8 that "later scribes" added the word "yet" and proved "later scribes" actually omitted and deleted the word "yet"! In this video on CAnswersTV YouTube Page, we presented the evidence and challenge. We are still waiting for anyone to correct the error or to respond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #15 from CAnsersTV: If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
Answer #15 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: We have already shown that the KJV can and does correct all Greek Texts, even the TR. However let's give a bit of clarification on Jeromes Latin Vulgate (340 A.D. - 430 A.D), as compared to the Old Latin of 157 A.D. You do undertand that the KJV comes from the Old Latin about 200 years earlier than Jerome's corrupted Latin Vulgate? We sure hope you have been telling your folks the difference. Many Bible Believers within the true Church knew the difference, and many gave their lives for it. Do them an honor Mr. Answer Man and honor their deaths by clarifying the difference, ok? As far as the last 6 verses of Revelation and for the sake of time and space, (which we are running out of), we shall link to a brothers page for the last 6 verses, just click here .
Scholar Response: We must remeber that the KJV translators had access to manuscripts unheard of and long gone. It was over 400 years ago and that is half a millennium closer to the earliest manuscripts. The KJV translators also knew the difference between Jeromes corrupted Latin Vulgate and the purer Old Latin, even as the Early Churches at Antioch in 150 A.D. started to translate the Greek into this Old Latin and Syriac. Remember the Apostle Paul warned of manuscript corruption coming from Alexandrian, Egypt as early as 60 A.D. in his warning to the Corinthians. Satan started his work immediately, even as the first originals were being spread around and copied.
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity,
but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ". II Corinthians 2:17 KJV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #16 from CAnswersTV: Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts?
Answer #16 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Are you seriously asking that question? The "original Greek manuscripts"? You do realize that there are NO ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS anywhere in the world, do you not? Please tell us your not quoting that to your students. Somebody hit the buzz button or hit the gong.
Scholar Response: With all due respect to our friends, after hearing that question, I'm not so sure our friends understand the originals are long gone, or perhaps they are thinking about the Dead Sea Scrolls, give them a break Preacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #17 from CAnswersTV: 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?
Answer #17 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Bible students can do whatever they want. We encourage them to buy up everything to compare, study, learn and critique the critics. We already answered your straw man "archaic English" argument, your starting to repeat yourself in the questioning. As far as the Greek words being conveyed, well, those 47 men did an outstanding job those 5 plus years, a true masterpiece. And remember there are no "original Greek words", caught ya, there you go again, THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS!
Scholar Response: Did anyone see my yellow magic marker? Oh, I agree with the Preacher, we covered that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #18 from CAnswersTV: 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.)
Answer #18 from Write the Vision Ministries:
Preacher Response: Seriously? Are we straw manning back to the cult thing? Have ye never read II Timothy 3:16 in that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"? ALL SCRIPTURE IS! What part of the word "IS" do you not understand? And don't pull a Bill Clinton on us in answering as he did, quote,"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Perhaps look in the mirror, you may find out that you yourself are in a cult and don't know it. It's called the Alexandrian Egyptian Cult of Modern Textual Criticism. That's right, your modern perversions of the bible come straight out of Egypt. We prefer Antioch, thank you very much.
Scholar Response: Preacher is right. II Timothy 3:16 reveals scripture is in the present tense, "inspired by God". It is such a shame these folks don't have a perfect, pure, and preserved translation to go buy at the bookstore. Oh, I mean there are plenty of KJV Bibles out there, they just don't believe they are God's Perfect and Preserved Word. Let us pray for them, seriously, in compassion, let's pull some out of the fires of unbelief. (Jude). "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh..." Romans 9:17 KJV. SCRIPTURE SAITH!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #19 from CAnswersTV: 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? Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Answer #19 from Write the Vision Minsitries:
Preacher Response: Okay, we will answer that question as Jesus did at times with another question in bargaining for an answer. If you can tell us where the "perfect word of God is today" in the year 2016, or where we can go and buy a copy of God's Perfect, Pure, and Preserved Word, we will answer where it was before 1611. Sound like a deal? But we will tell you for starters one place (among many places) it was before 1611. Try reading Acts 11:26 where they were first called Christians, in Antioch, around 45 A.D. There's one place. Now how about you tell us one place to go buy God's Perfect Word today. We told you one place, now you tell us one, then we continue. Otherwise your argument is proving to be the typical "straw man" response.
Scholar Response: That sounds like a deal to me. Where is God's Perfect Word today?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #20 from CAnswersTV: 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? Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Answer #20 from Write the Vision Ministries"
Preacher Response: Are you joking? There you go again! You really like talking about "the original Greek" don't you? For the 3rd and final time, THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS! Nice try, read the KJV before Genesis, "The Holy Bible, translated out of the original tongues"! The KJV translators never claimed to have the actual original manuscripts, it's obvious they are referring to the original languages and tongues as the introduction before Genesis well states. They never mention original manuscripts straw man.
Scholar Response: You know, I may be crossing the line here as far as Biblical Scholarship, but it was half a thousand years ago, and who knows, we were not there. Perhaps you could be wrong Mr. Preacher, could they have had the Original Greek 500 years ago? I'd have to guess that's impossible, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. Well, either way, we have faith in God's Word, we believe, and thank God for His awe Inspiring Word, preserved from those originals. "Faith cometh by hearing, and.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We truly hoped this helped our viewers and possible even those at CAnswersTV! Thanks for enduring the rough edges from our Preacher, he does love you all and wishes to make Bible Believers out of you. God Bless! For more info, check our Textual Criticism Page for more outstanding evidence.
Perhaps our CAnswer friends after answering 20 of thier questions, they will do us justice and answer the 1 question we asked of them on their video with Dr. White and Dr. Waite about the blooper on John 7:8. We presume we will not get a direct acknowledgment to correct the record, but rather the usual "straw man" response.
