FredsBibleTalk.com - 33 Answers KJV-Onlyists are Afraid You'll Give

Home: Articles / King James Onlyism: 33 Answers KJV-Onlyists are Afraid You'll Give

Bible Discernment is a KJV-only website and the website owner has laid down the gauntlet.

On his crudely designed website with the seizure inducing flash animation, the owner has compiled a list of some 33 questions that modern Bible version advocates are afraid they will be asked. Apparently, the "Bible Discerner" believes he has put together a list of silver bullet questions that will just shut the mouths of non-KJV onlyists and if they are asked any one of these 33 questions, they will close their modern Bible version, bow their heads, and with proverbial tail stuck between their legs, make a hasty retreat for the nearest exit.

Welp, I am made of greater substance, so I will answer every one of our challenger's questions. Additionally, I will take the opportunity when presented to ask our KJV onlyist questions he is afraid I will ask in response.

1) Have you done research on the KJV/other version controversies yourself?

Yes I have. And I would add, probably more so than many KJV onlyists who tend to only read literature published from within their own circles, just as I did when I was a practicing KJVer. The question is meant to "expose" some alleged fatal flaw in the arguments of the non-KJV onlyist. It is suggested that a person reads and uses a modern Bible version (MBV) because he or she doesn't know any better and is blindly following a favored teacher or what was taught at the Bible college where the person attended. Many KJV onlyists believe this about the non-KJV onlyists. It is assumed they are ignorant, but this is merely a strawman objection. I would throw back a question to our KJV onlyist:

Have you done research on the KJV-MBV controversy in sources OTHER THAN KJV publications? Have you read the research found at such sites as The King James Resource Center?

I would venture a guess that you have not, or only selectively.

2) If you are not in favor of using the KJV, and if you are in favor of using Modern Bible Versions, are you sure you understand the major points about the philosophical/theological position you are advocating?

Well, if I have done my own research as I acknowledged under the first question, then yes, I am quite aware of the philosophical-theological position I am advocating. It is called biblical Christianity.

You see, it is being suggested by the question that if a person reads from and recommends study in a MBV, then that person is advocating some alternative Christian faith or a devil inspired philosophy. Moreover, it is implied with the little phrase are you sure that if I am using a MBV, then I may be ignorant that I am using a new age Bible version. However, if we were to dig a bit under the revisionist top soil the KJV onlyist as laid down as the "fact" of how our English Bibles came about, it will reveal that much of it is contrived and has nothing to do with the facts.

A question in response: If you are not in favor of using any MBV and will ONLY use the KJV, are you aware of the Anglican theology that lies behind its production and the church-state politics that forced its translation?

3) Have you thought through the premise that - if you insist on using Modern Versions only - you must accept to go against 95% of the Bible Manuscripts that have been used by the Christian Church throughout the centuries (until 1904) ?

AND

4) Are you aware that the KJV is still supported by 95% of the Bible Parchments and Manuscripts which exist all over the world?

I treated these two questions together because they both address a common KJV myth about the biblical texts that support the KJV and how KJV onlyists understand textual criticism. They will present this idea that the KJV is translated from a biblical text that is supported by 95% of the evidence. The claim suggests to the textually uninitiated that the MVs are translated from entirely different manuscripts and presents an entirely different Bible.

A few things are important to note.

First, when he makes this claim, what is in view here is the New Testament documents, not the Old Testament documents. That is because we have more copies of the NT documents than we have of the OT. Though it is true our OT is translated from solid OT documents, the NT is different in that the manuscripts are many and wide spread from many areas of the world.

Secondly, the "95%" figure is only including the manuscripts that come from the Byzantine empire where they were copied. These manuscripts are called the Byzantine family and because the Byzantine Christians did such an excellent job of copying and maintaining them, they produced so many of them that it became the dominant family of manuscripts, and the ones from which much of the earlier translating work was taken. Hence, this family has the nickname of the Majority Text. But the title of "majority," contrary to KJV only claims, does not equate the best.

Third, later finds in the 1800s of older biblical texts helped to revolutionize the textual criticism of the NT. One of the things these new finds did was to push back the original reading of the NT in the Greek language to the 2nd century, nearly 200 years after the first NT documents were written. These new finds also uncovered some different readings than what was in the current textual apparatus of the day, the Received Text from which the KJV was translated. These different readings didn't alter the message of the Bible, neither did they take away or weaken any key doctrines of scripture as KJV onlyists would have people to believe. Thus, when textual critics of the NT in the 1800s wanted to provide a new translation of the NT, they determined to use some of the different readings because they were considered closer to the originals.

King James only apologists will often confuse the Received Text with the Majority Text as being one and the same. They are not. The Received Text is a working translational apparatus that was edited from manuscripts in the Majority Text family. The Received Text also has gone through at least 26 revisions since it was first published in the early 1500s by Erasmus. When Erasmus edited his first Greek text that became known as the Received Text, he used just a handful of incomplete manuscripts for his work. Many KJV onlyists are unaware of this fact. Additionally, the KJV translators used a variety of other sources for their translation work, which was really a revisionist work of the former Bishop's Bible. That included the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, and other ancient translations of the Old and New Testaments.

Hence, a couple of questions a person can ask a KJV advocates is: Do you know the difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text? Do you know the first handful of Received Text editions were based upon just a small amount of manuscripts? Did you know that the KJV translators did not use the Received Text exclusively, but used many other textual sources for their translation work?

5) It is true that the KJV translators relied on the manuscripts that were available in their own day and time. And it is also true that more Bible manuscripts were found since the early 1900s, than in all of the other centuries combined. Here is the key question: Are you aware that almost all these ancient manuscripts - those found in the 1900s - have accomplished, is to support, authenticate and validate the King James Version of the Bible?

AND

6) In other words, despite finding many more manuscripts of the Bible since the KJV was translated, more than 95% [sic] the new manuscripts found in the 1900s continue to support the King James Version, and disagree with the Modern Version. Are you aware of this?

I'll treat these two questions together as well.

First of all, I am not sure what the author has in mind when he writes about ancient manuscripts found in the 1900s. The bulk of the ancient manuscripts in question and that are the focus of so much KJV-only scorn were discovered in the 1800s, not the 1900s. To give the author the benefit of the doubt, he may have in mind the "19th century," not the 1900s, but I could be wrong about that.

Anyhow, he makes the claim that all of these manuscripts supposedly support the Received Text that underlies the KJV, but this is not entirely accurate. Again, his claim suggests that the MBVs present an entirely different NT than what is found in the KJV, but this is only inaccurate, if not dishonest.

The manuscripts on which the MBVs are based are almost identical in content as those manuscripts that were used to put together the Received Text. However, there is maybe 10% where the modern texts dissent in reading the same. What textual critics have done, and with good reason, is to side with those dissenting readings that differ with the Received Text in a variety of places because those manuscripts are hundreds of years older and closer to the original writings than those that were used to translate the KJV. King James apologist make a big deal over these dissenting readings by asserting that they introduce heresy or take away important biblical doctrine. But this is exaggerating the facts.

What's more, most KJV advocates ignore the fact that the Received Text has unique readings that are not found in any other NT manuscripts, even with in the Majority Text. The main reason for this anomaly is when Erasmus edited his Greek apparatus, he had only a few incomplete manuscripts to utilize. For example, he did not have a complete copy of Revelation and had to translate the Latin Vulgate into Greek in order to complete Revelation so as to be published first. Many of these unique readings stayed with in the Received Text and were even translated into the King James. In fact, it is important to ask a KJV only apologist about these unique readings.

7) Are you aware that Modern Versions Reject the Greek Text which underlies the English King James Version, and that this is really what the crux of the matter is - about the King James Version Debate?

That is not true. Those who translated what became the modern versions did not reject the Received Text just because it was orthodox and they were heretical as is suggested by this question. They chose to edit a newer apparatus that used the readings they believed better reflected what was originally written by the biblical authors. The issue for them was purity to the original text, not corrupting the Bible or throwing away the King James.

8) Do you realize that the Protestant Greek New Testament Textus Receptus, was used not only be they English speaking world in the KJV, but also by almost all other countries in the spread and propagation of the Bible - until 1904?

I personally would like to see his documentation on the Received Text holding sway until 1904. Westcott and Hort's text was published in the mid-1800s and began to be used in the translation of the Revised Version in the 1880s. Before that, several other textual scholars like Johann Bengel, began editing his own NT text as an alternative to the Received Text a couple of decades before then.

The author also fails to take into consideration the popularity of the Latin Vulgate, which was used by many protestants, like John Wycliffe and his Lollard friends, as a base text for their translations.

9) Do you therefore understand that to disagree with the Textus Receptus, is to place yourself against the true history of the Protestant Historical Teaching (in the choice of the Bible Versions that they recommended)???

Our author must believe this is a vital question because he places three question marks at the end. At any rate, he is selective in his history, because before the King James was translated the number one preferred translation for Protestants was the Geneva Bible. All the Protestants preferred it because it had been translated in Geneva, the heart of the Protestant Reformation and was the first true study Bible with Reformational footnotes. When King James authorized the publication of the new Bible that would carry his name, he specifically ordered that it not have footnotes and that it reflect no Reformed theology. In a manner of speaking, it was a counter-Reformation Bible. I wonder if our KJV proponent is aware of this fact?

10) Have you really stopped to think about the Motives WHY someone might [from a spiritual point of view] have an interest in getting modern Christians to reject the Bibles that upheld their Churches and their Doctrines for nearly 2000 years?

There are a number of statements of misinformation with this question.

First is the idea of questioning someone's motives from a spiritual point of view. Why is it automatically assumed that there are sinister motives behind anyone who wants to update and revise the Bible based upon the latest finds and textual criticism? Their motives could be for the sake of purity and integrity in maintaining God's Word.

It is also speculative to claim these nameless "someones" want to get modern Christians to reject the KJV. This borders on being conspiratorial in nature and wrongfully equates the KJV as being the only Bible that upholds the doctrine in the church.

Moreover, by asserting that the KJV is the one doctrinally pure Bible, the author has erroneously made the claim that the Received Text has always been in existence since the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Does he really believe it has been around for 2000 years? Basically he is saying that if you refuse to use the King James Bible, you are rejecting the Bible in whole. Never mind the fact that there were numerous other foreign language translations for the first 1500 years of the Church, then Erasmus edited his NT, and then that NT edition went through numerous revisions and wasn't even called the "Received Text" until 1633, nearly 20 years after the KJV was first published. This question places the author in the precarious position of defending a falsehood and making his faith look foolish.

Number 11 is a long one that contains some sub-questions, so I will not cite it in its entirety.

11). Are you aware that if you reject the Greek Text which underlies the King James Version, that you are rejecting the Bible and the Validity of the Bibles, and undermining the credibility and witness not only of the historic christian[sic]martyrs who were English, but also those from Spain, and From[sic]Holland, and from France, and from Germany and from Switzerland, and from Italy, since they all also rely on the Greek Textus Receptus that the King James uses?

The question suggests that if you are reading a MBV instead of the King James, then you are choosing a translation that stands opposed to the historical translations from the period of the Reformation. Because those versions were translated from the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, and the King James was one of the final English translations based upon the Received Text, to use a MBV instead of the King James means you are rejecting all of these other historic translations, as well as the one favored by the Christians who died for their faith during the period of the Reformation.

The author then goes on to list some of those translations, including the Geneva Bible in among the list of the other foreign language translations based upon the Received Text and tying it to the American Pilgrims and Puritans.

We need to consider some important historical facts and have them set into context.

Keep in mind that when Erasmus first published his Greek text that would eventually be called the "Received Text," textual criticism of any serious nature was still in its infancy. Principles of textual criticism were still being hashed out by scholars and it wasn't an exact science just yet.

Additionally, Christians were also recovering their knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages. Any serious study of the ancient biblical languages was primarily limited to the professional clergy and even then the languages were not necessarily studied with any depth, especially to uncover meaningful exegesis of the biblical text.

Furthermore, the collection, collation, and editing of Greek manuscripts into one textual apparatus from which a person could translate was also severely limited. I noted earlier how Erasmus only had 10 or less to start with and even those manuscripts were incomplete. As the Reformation expanded across Europe, so also did the knowledge of Christian scholarship with regards to textual criticism.

Thus, for our questioner to suggest that the only viable Greek text is to be found in the Received Text alone and the only viable translation is the King James alone is not being honest with the historical facts of how textual criticism developed. Moreover, there is a reasonable explanation for why only the Received Text was utilized in the translation of those other foreign language Bibles:

Putting together a textual apparatus from which to translate is just plain hard.

Once the work had been accomplished by Erasmus, no one else necessarily had the "know-how" or the resources to compile an alternate text. For the growing Protestant Reformation all that the Christians cared about was getting the Word of God into the hands of the people. The Received Text was used, not because it was considered orthodox and the pure Word of God over other rival texts, but because it was the only one really accessible to the general public for use in translating.

As for the claim about the Geneva Bible being used by Puritans and Pilgrims, the Puritans rejected the KJV because it was in their minds a Conformist Anglican produced Bible. They choose the Geneva, not because it was based upon the Received Text, but because it had strong ties to the Protestant Reformation and because it wasn't the KJV.

A couple of excellent questions to pose to our KJV onlyist in return would be:

Which edition of the Received Text do you have in mind? You do know there are nearly 25 editions/revisions of the Received Text? And, Are you a King James Onlyists or a Received Text Onlyist? If you only care about the Received Text being preserved, would you favor an up-dated English translation based upon the Received Text to replace the aged KJV?

Let me treat these next 4 questions together because they address similar things:

12). Do you know (a) the life, (b) the character, and (c) the teachings & (d) beliefs of the Bible translators of the Modern Versions that you are defending? Do you know - for example - what they believed about Jesus Christ?

AND

13). Do you know - for a fact - what they believed about the Deity of Jesus Christ?

AND

14). Do you know - for a fact - whether or not they believed that Mary should be worshiped?

AND

15). Do you know - for a fact - what they believed about the Trinity? [how would you prove or demonstrate your answers to others ... like us?]

This series of questions implies those scholars who were involved in the textual criticism that produced the Hebrew and Greek texts used to translate our MBV like the NASB and the ESV, were really heretical in their theology and their work cannot be trusted. Generally, questions like these are aimed at Westcott and Hort who are considered by KJV onlyists to be the arch-heretics who displaced the Received Text.

Heretics, however, rarely corrupted the physical text of either the OT or the NT. What they did do is to keep the text intact, but pour their heretical teaching onto the Bible. They twist the scriptures, as Peter says, to their own destruction.

So, how exactly do I go about proving or demonstrating what it was these individuals believed? Well, probably the easiest way to "prove" or "demonstrate" what any group of individuals says about these issues is to go to their works where they have written about Christ's Deity, Mary worship and the Trinity. Sadly, KJV onlyists rarely do this type of leg work before offering their personal attacks against the textual critics who have provided so much excellent historical work for the Church at large in the area of our Bible. Even if citations can be provided that do prove the person was orthodox in all of these areas, the KJV onlyists rarely except the citations as convincing.

I, in turn, would asked the KJV onlyist if he was aware that Erasmus, who gave us the Received Text, was a staunch Roman Catholic priest who did believe in the power of the Eucharist and worshiped Mary. I would further ask him if he was aware of the fact that the KJV translators were staunch Anglicans who believed in infant baptismal regeneration.

16). Do you know - for a fact - WHY they rejected the Textus Receptus, that underlies the King James?

It would be helpful if our author would stick with either using the Received Text or the Textus Receptus. He assumes his readers are familiar with these two terms and the history behind them.

Any way, it is a tad dishonest to suggest these textual scholars rejected the Received Text. What they did was to improve NT textual scholarship and part of that was laying aside the Received Text as the most accurate NT text. As I have already noted in the previous post on this subject, as well as in my series on KJV onlyism, many scholars have documented the problems found in the Received Text. The key one being that it was based upon inferior textual witnesses to the original autographs.

What the question implies is that scholars rejected the Received Text because it was "orthodox" and they were liberal heretics who couldn't stand for God's Word. Nothing is further from the truth.

17). Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and how those college professors influenced them?

AND

18). Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and what the Biases of those colleges professors was [sic] - in terms of being in favor of (a) God, (b) Christianity, and (c) the Bible?

My first challenge back to any KJV apologist who asked me these two questions would be simply: Do you? I would be willing to wager a Costco ice cream bar dipped in chocolate and rolled in chopped almonds that he would be clueless as to who the professor were who taught these suspect NT scholars and what biases they had against the faith, if any at all.

The only point to these two questions is to try to increase the severity of these scholar's heresy. Not only were they personally heretical in their beliefs, but they also learned from heretics. Thus a person should throw out any MBV quicker than he was going to do before.

Of course the burden is upon the KJV onlyists leveling these charges to demonstrate the heresy of the professors and universities in question, and then to demonstrate that if any heresy did exist how if at all did it impact the scholars who handled the NT documents in question.

19). Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators even believed that the real and true Word of God (the Bible) could be found within the manuscripts either (a) that they used or (b) that the Historic Christian Church has used for 1900 years?

AND

20). Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the fall of mankind (Genesis 1-3) and the Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin?

AND

21). Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the same historic Christian teachings that you believe in? Do they even claim to believe in the historic Christian teachings?

Again, my first challenge back to the KJV onlyist would be the same as above: Do you? Here our author has switched from bashing the scholars who put together the Greek text to bashing the translators. The reader may not catch the switch, but the NT textual scholars are not necessarily the same as the NT translators. There have been translators who have translated MBV that even I would say are unorthodox and liberal. However, those liberal translators did not tamper with the physical Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, they merely translated their work to reflect their bias.

Moreover, the translations usually targeted by KJV onlyists are conservative and were translated by conservative, God fearing and Bible believing men. I happen to personally know some of the translators involved with the production of the NASB and they most certainly do believe in the historic Christian teachings of the Church, contrary to what our author suggests with his questions. Additionally, the ESV was translated by many godly men, including Wayne Grudem, who has been a strong apologist for the biblical perspective on manhood and womanhood. I would encourage our author to visit a wonderful little website called the Bible Researcher that traces the historical development of many of our English versions. He will discover that most of them do not have the sinister background that he believes they have.

22. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the American Bible society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version?

OK, what exactly are the requirements? I would be curious if our KJV advocate here really knows for himself. I went to the American Bible Society website and hunted all over the place to find an official list, but apparently they have found out that a league of KJV onlyists are out to expose their New Age agenda, because they don't list the requirements for a person to be a translator. I am guessing that either a KJV advocate knows something we MBV folks don't, or he is exaggerating the nature of these so-called requirements.

The next question has 3 or so extra questions woven in to one. I will look at them in turn:

23. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the German Bible Society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version?

I figure that if our KJV onlyists can't produce a "requirement list" for the American version, he is going to be even more hard pressed to find one for the German group, it being in a foreign language that I am sure our KJV apologist here doesn't have a clue how to read.

Do you know that the United Bible Societies, the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament - used in 95% of the seminaries today - is essentially the product of the German Society and that they retain the Copyright on the Nestle-Aland Greek Text?

OK? So what? I am sure our KJV onlyists insists there is some conspiracy to be exposed here, but I have yet to see any serious evidence for one. At least evidence for one that should strike fear in my heart. By the way, most KJV onlyists carry on about how the KJV is a non-copyrighted work, but in reality, Oxford and Cambridge presses hold the copyright on the KJV. See an extended study on the KJV and copyrights.

Do you realize that the Beliefs, Teachings, Ideology and Methods of Translation of the German Bible Society will therefore be evidence on every page of the Greek Text that Modern Versions use (since modern versions rely almost exclusively on the Nestle-Aland bad Greek Text)?

First off, it would be helpful if our MBV accuser provided some documentation, or any evidence for that matter, explaining the "Beliefs, Teachings, Ideology and Methods of Translation" by this black-hooded German Bible Society. All we have from him are baseless accusations. Secondly, how is he defining "bad." I have an idea, but in order from him to establish some credibility for his conspiratorial delusions, I would like to have something more substantial.

His next question, question 24, is fairly lengthy, so I will not quote it in its entirety.

24. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, if the Germans Bible Society was around in the Time of Hitler, (which it was), and if the German Bible Society operated during the time of Hitler's Third Reich in Germany (which it did), and if it needed a Nazi "certificate of good standing" (which it did), then what would this mean...for your modern Bible Version?

I guess it would mean that anyone who uses a MBV is a goose-stepping, SS, Brown shirt wearing Jew hater. Seems to me that is what he is implying anyways. Again, our author suffers from a lack of substantive footnoting. I would like to see a bit of documentation demonstrating a tight connection between the German Bible Society, the Nazis and my ESV. Furthermore, as the question charges, I want to see where the "Nazis" corrupted the OT. Apparently they did, correct? The older Hebrew texts are still in print. If it is true that Nazis made and approved the OT text from which MBV translated, then our KJV apologist should be able to give us clear examples where the Nazis changed the OT.

Additionally, the charge against the German Bible Society is a tad misinformed, because they did not officially organize until 1948, three years after WWII. There may had been some semi-organized group of Christians around when the Nazi took over Germany, but it is factually mistaken to charge the official German Bible Society with collaborating with Hitler.

Oh, but there is more.

The author goes on in his question to implicate Hebrew scholar, Rudolf Kittel, who published three editions of the Hebrew OT, as being a Nazi anti-Semite and tied to the Nazi party. The problem with this charge is that Rudolf Kittel died in 1929, a few years before the Nazi party came into power. More than likely, our KJV onlyist is confusing Rudolf with his son Gerhard, who is usually the one accused of Nazi collaboration. Gerhard edited the famous Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT that is still in use today in many seminaries and is quoted as an authority in defining NT words. Though it is true Gerhard was named as an "official" theologian by the Nazi party and the Nazi's often appealed to some of his works as an excuse for their anti-Semitic eugenic policies, the KJV onlyists who attempt a connection of modern Bible versions to Gerhard Kittel via the Nazi party are straining at some serious gnats. More over, they have to demonstrate where Gerhard's NT dictionary promotes Nazi anti-semitic ideas and where it impacted Bible translations to favor Nazism.

25. IF all of these concerns were valid, legitimate and provable, then do you still think that we should thoughtlessly chose and decide that Modern Versions of the Bible are somehow superior to the Historic Bibles that have been used around the world for thousands of years?

That is a mighty big "IF" and none of the accusations leveled here against MBV have even come close to being established as legitimate. I could ask a similar question of our KJV apologist: IF all of these concerns were shown to be invalid, illegitimate, and out right contrived, then do you think you should apologize for leading young, un-witting Christians astray by confusing them with such baseless accusations and flat out nonsense?

26. Just how happy do you think that God will be, when you get up to Heaven in a few years, and they you can explain this yourself to HIM???

Well, what about you Mr. KJV-only apologist? How happy do you think God will be when everything you wrote here is revealed to be foolish and nothing by wood, hay, and stubble and all of your dishonest misinformation is burned up before the Lord?

27. If you are a Pastor, is it true that you should already have these answers, Is it true that you should already have done this research, Is it True that you should already be ready to give an answer of him that asketh you - of the reason(s) and the hope that you have within you...???

I believe I have demonstrated to my readers, and I will to any congregation God is pleased to send me to pastor, that I have done sufficient research into this area. Moreover, I believe I have shown that the KJV-only questions are easily answerable and refutable and when hard pressed with counter questions, the KJV-only apologist cannot adequately defend his world view.

28. We can certainly afford to be wrong ! The question is: Before God (and James 3) can you afford for us to be right ???

I am not sure what this question is asking, but lets turn it back on the KJVer. Before God, are you absolutely certain you are right about your history of Bible translations? Are you willing to repent of KJV onlyism if it can be shown to you that the belief is utterly unsupportable?

29. So, to continue...sharing truth here....Would you be surprised to learn that the German Bible Society does not follow Protestant Theology ? Would you be surprised to learn that the German Bible Society despises Martin Luther, His Bible and the Textus Receptus, and instead seems committed to promoting Bible Texts that (a) were rejected by the Christian Church for thousands of Years and (b) that "coincidentally" seem to greatly favor Roman Catholic Theology?

Again, I don't believe you have established your conspiracy about the German Bible Society. But let's say they are all devil worshipers and don't care a lick about Martin Luther and Protestants. With all the mounds of manuscript evidence we have on hand to compare to their work, where exactly did they depart from the Bible? Even more to the point, where exactly does the Received Text maintain orthodoxy where the MBV texts don't? In other words, is there any orthodox Christian doctrine that is ONLY found in the Receive Text? How exactly is their Greek text corrupted from the original? This is what you haven't shown. Like I have said before: heretics don't intentionally corrupt texts as KJV onlyists claim, they have corrupted interpretations that they bring to the text so as to twist the text to fit those interpretations.

30. Would it surprise you to learn that for the Greek New Testament used by the German Bible Society/UBS, that they (UBS) hired the head of Theology of the Roman Catholic Church, the head of the Pontifical Institute in Rome (which trains the best of the Roman Catholic Theologians and Priests)...who is Archbishop Carlo Maria Martini of Milan ? And they hired him to be one of the main overseers of the Greek Text that is being used by almost all Protestant Seminaries in the USA today ? What should we do when we find this out ? Should we ignore it ? Should we pretend this practice does not take place, and maybe it will go away ? Do we keep smiling and say nothing ? Or do we decide to seek Truth, Love God with all of our heart, mind, and strength, and start asking the questions that others have been afraid to ask ? Do we finally decide that we will stand for something, take a risk and ask some very hard questions ???

This has already been mentioned before, but let me ask one more time just in case our KJVer skipped quickly over the question. What do you do when you find out Erasmus, the man who gave us the Received Text, the text KJV onlyists insist is the pure Word of God, was a life long Mary worshiping, Eucharist taking, infused grace believing, celibate priest who never recanted his Catholicism? Do you keep smiling and say nothing? Or will you recognize your hypocrisy of accusing MBV folks of collusion with Catholics even though the very Bible you claim is straight from heaven was edited in its original by a Catholic who didn't care for Protestants? Will you finally decide to stand for the truth and answer some hard questions, even if it leads to abandoning your KJV onlyism and in spite of being named an apostate by Peter Ruckman?

31. Keeping in mind that the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott & Hort are used for a great deal of the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament Text, How much research have you personally done on the Occultic Practices of Westcott & Hort, or do you wish instead to email us, and we can share with you some of the details of this, from their own writings ???

I have actually done quite a bit and if you will read my testimonial on leaving KJV onlyism, you will note how it was my research into the lives of Westcott and Hort, sparked by Gail Riplinger's monstrous book, New Age Bible Versions, that placed me on the path of leaving KJV onlyism once and for all. How about you? Have you personally done any research into what Westcott and Hort REALLY believed? Or do you choose to only believe second and third hand misinformation published by KJV apologists who have distorted the lives of these men to the point of out right lying against them? Have yo taken the time to read the research of James May, who has read through nearly all of Dr. Westcott's printed works and has shown that KJV onlyists totally manufacture the bulk of their libelous citations against him?

32.. Would you be surprised to learn that many of the translators of the modern versions of the Bible state in their own writings that they do NOT believe in the literal Bible ? Have you personally done research on this topic yourself ? Have you read 3 books on this specific subject ? Have you even read one?

I want to see some documentation to the first question, and then I want to see him make a direct connection between their so-called unorthodox belief about the Bible and how that belief has corrupted their translation.

As for doing research on this topic: I have read at least 50 books on the subject, many of which are KJV-only publication I still own to this day. How's them apples? Additionally, I have read hundreds of web articles from KJV-only publications and I participated on at least two KJV-only web board discussion groups and interacted personally with KJV onlyists for nearly a year or more until I was dismissed from their groups for being a "troublemaker." I will say that after spending that time with these self-taught experts, maybe except for two or three, none of them had any solid grasp on textual criticism, let alone proper translation technique. A good portion of them were not even familiar with the original biblical languages except for use of a Strong's concordance or a Bible software program. And all of them were prone to fits of conspiratorial nonsense and contrived historical revisionism in order to lend support to their KJV-only world view.

Let me ask you: Have you read at least 3 books that critically evaluate the claims set forth by KJV only apologists? How about one? And I mean you truly read it, not thumb through it to find more selective grist for your KJV-only mill. I mean truly read it and pondered what the author was saying against KJV onlyism?

33. Don’t feel so good if you have read the "King James Only debate" by James White. Are you even aware of how much re-writing there was, between the First Edition of this book, and all of the Editions that came after ? Have you also gone on the internet to see, learn, read or study the answers that Gail Riplinger gave ? (We are simply trying to help you assess - for yourself - just how thorough and truth-seeking your research, which you have personally done, has been)

OK, so the accusation is that James White, a scholarly critic of KJV onlyism, re-wrote his book, The King James Only Controversy, several times thus producing several editions. The implication of this question is that James has been deceptive about his multiple editions and that they were necessary because he had so much difficulty dealing with KJV only argumentation, or he distorted the truth about the credibility of the KJV apologists he was criticizing.

Seeing that I happen to know James just a bit having spent some time with him in extended conversation with several other men, and seeing that I know many men who are much closer to James than I am and can vouch for the integrity of his character, I find the accusation posed in this question to be... well ... trashy. So, I personally emailed James White through his ministry, Alpha and Omega Ministries, and presented to him this question. This is what he wrote back to me:

There has been only one edition of the book to begin with. While I would like to do a new edition, it would be hard, since I did the original typesetting myself! So I have no idea where these folks are coming from or what they are referring to. I shall look into their charge.

In other words, this KJV-only apologist has either been misinformed as to the nature of Mr. White's book, or he is making this lie up. I know James, and I do not believe he is lying to me. So which is it Bible Discernment guy? Are you intentionally making this charge up or have you bought into the distortions of fact? I notice that you got the title of his book wrong when you wrote out this question, so maybe you are a dupe depending upon 2nd or 3rd hand information. Additionally, you seem to think that Ms. Gail Riplinger is a credible apologist for your cause even though she has been debunked by even individuals within KJV onlyism. See for example David Cloud's two articles I found easily after a quick search here and here.

Please let me know about new Articles & Bible Studies from Fred's Bible Talk.