Want Some Answers ???

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for your mail. You write –

>>Over the years! have repeatedly asked critics and 'corrector:' of the KJB to answer these questions, but they seem unable to do so. How about you, Mark?... They are an straightforward questions, and I have no problem at all answering them, What about you?<<

But then on the last page -

>>I do not believe any benefit will accrue from our continuing the correspondence. It would be too time consuming.<<

Well, I am happy to discontinue correspondence at your request Usually, I answer theological letters because they deserve a reply. Correspondence can be successful, it helps us study the Bible and it's an exchange of views.  Since there is so much misinformation regarding this subject, not to answer your mail is simply unacceptable.

It's good you were "very richly" blest and your faith strengthened "from the Lord" by my letters. It's a joy to write. 'If I had not lifted up the stone, you had not found the jewel '. Sure, I won't convince you, your mind’s made-up. But the Spirit who dwells in us, stirs my heart to comment why I differ regarding these matters.

Page One

When you contend for "the faith" you contend for 'the KJV'. When you are challenged about the KJV as the only true Bible, you quote l  Pe.3.15 "give an answer". Whenever the Psalmist says “Thy Word" you think its the KJV. When he says "Thy Word is perfect" it's the KJV and those who 'forsake the Word', forsake the KJV. In Scripture words have a different meaning for you than me.

You believe those rejecting 'Thy Word' [KJV] receive God's judgment [Ps.105.28ff 106.24ff]. Those who ignore the KJV "with their whole heart... sin against God". Your doctrine reinterprets thousands of verses with meanings the original writers never intended the reader to have. You are saying Bible verses can't be correctly understood, unless the KJ only people explain them. I realize you don't "venture outside the Bible". But your conspiracy message was unknown without the tape. You heard it's message, it sounded right, it became real and now it's got you.

I mentioned Hoekema's book on cults because he lists cultic characteristics, which help detect false doctrine. He writes of "those who manipulate Scripture". "All cults have some extra revelation not  naturally found in Scripture.... They claim to have some special insight when reading Scripture" And they claim their writings/writers have "greater authority and insight than others".

If the message claimed the correct version was the NIV, you could have embraced that message. Your group then becomes the "only truthful Church". Or "God's special people in the Universal Church". 'The group shares a gospel, but also their special message" and it's "generally intolerant of others who disagree with it.... It regards itself as central in the last days with special dates" [1611?].

Another distinctive trait of cults is 'the subtle contradiction of justification by grace'. "Although they speak of grace their theologies have no room for grace in the real sense of the word". Knowing what you say about other "Bibles" and I only spoke Chinese, I couldn't be sure about salvation [or any doctrine] unless I learnt English and personally read "God's Very Word". You state,

>>How do you know that you are saved? Please don't say "...because the Bible says so,"  if you CAN’T produce that Bible<<

Your telling people, they CANNOT be sure of salvation if they “CAN'T produce" the KJV. True, I couldn't be sure, because you call other versions 'Satanic and untrustworthy'. So the convert must repent and believe the Gospel and use the "very word for word unaltered, Bible". And learn to read and speak English.  You said I'm "wrong" and "naive" about this, but read on and discover why my analysis is correct. Pastor Tim of the Calvary Church tells me,

>>We attempt to live by the precepts contained in God word which we believed are preserved in the Authorised Version (AV KJV). We preach it regularly as God's will is revealed in it (Titus 1:3) and eternal salvation is dependent upon God's words (1Pet.1:23).<<

Indeed this goes to "the very heart of salvation" Dennis. Is this eternal salvation dependent on faith in God's grace through Christ, as revealed in the Bible, or on a bible version? This is why my letter said "there will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV and never spoke English [Rev. 7:9 10:11 13:7 17:15]. They simply accepted the Gospel message". If they never read the KJV, it questions your doctrine. Note in Romans 3&4 and Galatians 3&4 Paul never mentions languages or words. Yet you make the issue about "words" and language, adding them to the very nature of the Gospel.

But what if I agree, with all you say about the KJV, will that guarantee salvation? No!  Whether one believes it or not will not determine his eternally destiny. And how a person acquires the salvation of his soul is what the Bible is all about. If your doctrine is not a fundamental part of the Gospel of the Good News all about Christ, then it is a teaching of man. And it is exactly that.

Page 1-2

You gave me a list of verses. With these you beg the issue, because you begin from the view that the KJV must be correct so all others must be wrong. If any question the KJV they question God. You begin by presupposing the TR and KJV, constitute the final and irrefutable form of God's Word. Then by comparing other English versions that change this or that, you castigate them for their omissions and changes. Methodologically this kind of argument is quite unacceptable, for it assumes what is in yet to be proven. If I began with the KJV I could also show many places where modern translations disagree. And prove the KJV a bad translation. I could show the clarity of modern versions yet the obscurity of KJ words and suggest it's hiding the clear meaning. But such arguments don't themselves demonstrate the authenticity of the rendering of any version at any particular place. Rather, they beg the issue [And this is what you do repeatedly]. True, modern translations omit words or phrases the KJV retains but the KJV omits words or phrases that other versions retain. I could go through every verse mentioned in your mail and show your comments questionable. But you will still hold to your original comments regardless.

You say the modern versions fail to "glorify" Christ. I might ask that of KJV advocates, who believe Christ has a name above all names, yet they believe the KJV is above that name. This comes from their incorrect understanding of a poor translation of Ps.138.2 in the KJV. However, I would like to comment on the first of the verses you mention and leave the others for another time.

Isa.7.14. A conspiracy against the virgin birth? The R.C's turning against the virgin Mary? Your comparing of words indicates a strained view of how you determine the gospel message from the text of Scripture. Do modern versions deny He was 'the coming Messiah'? No ! What does the NIV Jn.l.41-42 say Dennis?  “…We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus…” What does the NIV say in Isa.7.14 ? "the Lord himself will give you a sign:  The virgin will be with child”. Hardly a translation with such objectives, it appears your list is selective and your comments conjecture.

Are you aware of the controversial Hebrew word used in Isa.7.14? Sometimes it means "virgin" and sometimes means "young woman". The way which Isaiah uses the word here is primary to his young wife and her newborn son [Isa.8.1-4]. This of course was not a virgin birth. God's "sign" was that before this child was old enough to talk [vs.4] the two invading Kings would be destroyed so the word ‘almah’ does not signify a VIRGIN only; for it is applied, Proverbs 30:19, to  signify a young married woman. But Pr.30.19 is no proof Mary wasn't a virgin Mtt.1.23 describes a total fulfillment of Isaiah, - the virgin Mary conceived. As the Son of God, God our Father was His Father. As the Son of Man Joseph [although not His natural father] was commanded by God to marry Mary and so became His earthly father.

Some translators use Matthew's reference to interpret Isaiah's Hebrew word [ie. NIV, LB, AB, ICB, RBV etc]. Indicating no conspiracy but a need for preachers to acknowledge the relevance of Hebrew and Greek. And, an example of a problem translators have. They must choose one word and cannot have both, and some critics like you won't be happy no matter what they do. Unless they are the KJV translators who never made mistakes or errors. Or did they? I asked a simple question, "...is that all errors?" You replied –

>>you deliberately misquoted me to try and score a pixie point I had mentioned that the only differences between the numerous editions of the KJB were the correction of the printing errors<<

At first you wrote "...spelling errors corrected". You said "corrected" I didn't "misquote". Now you write "...printing errors". Your latest letter says –

You see the problem Dennis? Your word "error" changes where it suits you. And it might seem trivial yet an error is an error and it only takes one to fail the “perfect” test. I know you said 'typographical and spelling errors'. But to go telling people the 1611 is the Inerrant Word of God is not true. It's no more inerrant than any other. To ask, "if the KJB is not inerrant, which BIBLE is inerrant? is a silly question.  I come back to this later and show why. There are many kinds of errors. Is this an error?- "And he trembling and astonished said, lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" [Ac.9.6.KJV] Erasmus introduced them in from the Vulgate ['the Common Bible']. They are found in no Greek manuscript at all. And they are an obvious assimilation to the parallel account in Ac.22.10.

I note this statement repeated 10 TIMES in your mail -

>>The Lord Jesus Christ says that the true word of God, through the Holy Spirit, will reveal truth" [not  error], will ^“glorify Him”; and 'testify of Him” - so, that being so, 'Which Bible is really the true Word of God, - the KJB or these other versions?<<

This seems to say "The Lord Jesus....says that the true word of God... is the KJB". Of course, Jesus said no such thing. It's another example of how you beg the issue over and over. Similar to your lists comparing versions with the KJV and looking for "errors" with them, not the KJV. Just as you continually beg the question saying..... is your bible, the true Word of God, or not? that is the issue”. Yet if one explains why they differ, you say their reasons-"... are absolutely irrelevant", "...all of them...".

I would very much like to go through your lists of verses comparing the KJV with others, but for the sake of space and time I can't. I could show your argument is conjecture, but you will still hold to your original comments regardless. I could complain about the KJV using the word "it" when referring to the Holy Spirit [Rom.8.26] and a host of other problems with the KJV. But it's appropriate to keep to subjects already raised than introduce new ones [Bring me back to them if they are important to you].

You only mention 4 late mss. Keep checking this one and you will find the truth. Clarke wrote, “The clause, dia tou aimatoV autou Through his blood, is omitted by  ABCDEFG, and by most others of weight and importance; by the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic,  AEthiopic, Sahidic, some copies of the Vulgate and by the Itata; and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text. It is likely that the reading here is not genuine; yet that we have redemption any other way than through the sacrifice of Christ, the Scriptures declare not The same phrase is used Eph.l:7, where there is no various reading in any of the MSS., versions, or fathers. The forgiveness of sins- dia tou aimatoV autou. The taking away of sins; all the power, guilt, and infection of sin. All sin of every kind, with all its influence and consequences”. (NT. Vol.5B John-Acts)

To emphasize a lack in Col.1:4 NIV,  yet the words are found in  Eph.1.7 NIV indicates something you either didn^’t know or didn't want to know. So telling people about the absence in Col.1:14 is half the story. In Eph.1.7 the NIV destroys the conspiracy idea.

It appears you have little idea about translation and textual errors. And don't know the reason for the deletion in Col.1:14. What are textual errors and how they develop ? When scribes hand copied MSS they made mistakes. If a mistake occurred in 200-300 that would transfer to all the other copies made from that MSS. Translators have sources of information for their work [like doctors have instruments] they have over 2100 lectionary MSS more than 2700 minuscules over 260 uncials and about 80 papyri. The vast majority of these 5,000 or so MSS are fragmentary. 50 of these 5,000 contain the NT and only one of the 50 is an uncial - regardless of the abundant supply of MSS there is no two MSS that agree in every detail. Although some MSS are more useful than others this problem makes it difficult to know what the Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors to write. The oldest MSS are not always the best, And the majority reading in a place is not always trustworthy for some bad MSS were copied many times and some good ones scarcely at all. You write,

>>Of course, it is missing in the three key bibles used and promoted by the New Age Movement, namely the NIV, NASV and RSV, and this is understandable when one recognise: that the NAM false doctrine is fostered by the use of these three versions, - whereas the KJB stands alone in exposing their duplicity<<

You have evidence of this 'promotion'? None I bet. You wrote,

>>This verse is one of the “key" verses that I always check out in new bible versions which are coming off the press at the average rate of one new version per month. Each of course claims to be 'the most accurate, most easily understood, closest to the originals blah, blah, blah etc” all of which is patently nonsense, as they are never compared with the previous modem versions, but always against only the KJV, which still stands supreme, and always will. It seems strange that they would do this, but they always do<<

What evidence do you have that proves modern versions, "are never compared with the previous modem versions, but always against only the KJB?

>>I check this verse because it has to do with the very heart of salvation, and is a simple example of the 'litmus test' which the Lord gave in John’s gospel. Surely you can see Mark that the most precious part of salvation is the shed sinless blood of the Lord? So why leave it out? One of the reasons it may have been omitted from the NIV is that it cuts right across the New Age philosophy in which salvation is something that is no longer the prime goal for the lost sinner. In fact even lost sinners are considered somewhat unfashionable by the NAM<<

I checked your comment regarding the NIV to see  if it is influenced by the NAM and so leaves out "... the most precious part of salvation... [His] shed sinless blood..."  I looked-up these verses in the NIV -Mk.14:24 Mt27:24-25 Jn.6:53-56 19:34. Ac.5:28 20.28 Rom.3:25 5:9 1 Cor 10:16 11:25,27 Eph.1:7 2:13 Col.1:20 Heb.9:12-14 18-22,25 10:19. I found the charge totally and completely untrue. And the charge -"modem versions downgraded or degraded or demoted the Deity, and the Glory, and the Testimony of the Lord" is also not true.

>>Over and over again, the Bible emphasises the significance and the importance of the sinless blood of Christ. A few bible verses that immediately come to my mind are: I John 1:7, Act 20:28, Ephes.2:13, Coloss.1:20, Heb.9:22 Rev.5:9 Rom.3:25, and Heb.9:12, - and I could easily locate another dozen or so as well [why not check these out, Mark]<<

Thanks I checked in the NIV. The blessing was wonderful. Whether you acknowledge the fact or not, God has using modem versions to bring glory to His name. Concerning Col.1.14. You write,

>>your statement is wrong, and does not fit the facts. In spire of my dislike of being sidetracked by fly spots; I did as brief check, and in the old Nestles I find the Greek phrase<<

I'm amazed that you often consult the "Nestles" to justify the KJV. The Nestles comes from Westcott and Hort who used the vaticanus and Sanaiticus. By consulting  the Nestles Dennis you have displeasure of  Derek Pearce who describes the Nestles as “corrupt”. [The Doubters Dozen. Pg32 D Pearce (Pearce an extreme KJ radical believes the Greek text must be justified according to the KJV pg31] Perhaps you quote the Nestles when it suits? You also write,

>>In your 'last letter to me, you devoted an entire page to justify the NIV omitting "through his blood^”and you put forward a hypothetical argument which sadly demonstrates the lengths that a bible-corrector (= KJ 'scoffer” will go to avoid the KJB text at all cost. You speculated that the scribes might have been aware of Ephes. 1:7, and as part of that verse contains the words "in whom we have redemption through his blood. the forgiveness of sins..." these words might "echo in their mind" as they were copying Coloss:. 1:14, and so they might incorrectly ADD the phrase "through his blood" to the text. What FACTS do you have to support this wild theory, Mark? None!<<

Not a wild theory. These books will help you on these matters, M. Metzger, The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (N.Y: Oxford University, 1968) F. G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible. W. Adams (London: Duckworth, 1975).). H Greenlee, Introduction to NT Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964).  V. Taylor, The Text of the NT, A Short Introduction. (London: Macmillan, 1963); J. Finegan, Encountering NT. Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). M Metzger. The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (London: Cambridge University. 1970).

>>But let suppose they did as you suggested, - then what about the words "In whom we have redemption" and "the forgiveness of sins? To be consistent, did thee, add these as well to Coloss.1:14, or weren't these words "echoing in their minds? But why stop there? One can fabricate an manner of things that might have happened limited only by one's imagination. Did they scratch a flea bite on their backside causing it to bleed and thus were reminded of "through his blood? Or perhaps someone had a nose bleed? With conjecture and speculation, there are no limits to anything at all! Can you not see the absurdity of advancing such a wild theory....<<

There are two main kind of errors caused by the early scribes: The unintentional and Intentional. [1] Unintentional. The scribe had no intention of changing anything. He simply made a mistake. When writing down what the reader read out to him and to those working with him, he might hear something incorrectly and therefore make a mistake. For example, he might hear echomen instead of echomen ("we have" instead of 'let us have'), or vice versa (cf Rom 5:1). The pronunciation of ou and u was indistinguishable: this explains the variants in Rev 1:5, where the KJV is based on a text that reads Lousanti (".. and washed us...") whereas many others follow MSS that read lusanti (“… freed us..”).

The pronouns hemeis/hameis (we/you) arid their declensional forms were pronounced almost exactly the same way, arid therefore give rise to many uncertainties. Did John write 1 John in order that "our " joy, or "your joy, may be complete (1 Jn.1:4)?

After the scribes had finished transcribing, a trained corrector reread and made corrections. The corrector might miss mistakes and might even introduce new ones. I have certainly done that at times when reading and writing. Other unintentional errors occurred when the scribe was copying a MS by himself (instead of listening to a reader), he uses his own eyes to read the parent MS. Certain Greek letters in uncial form are readily confused. Some common errors were caused by similar endings of lines or words. A scribe copies what he sees, but when his eyes return to the parent MS he accidentally leaves out a bit because his eyes skip down to a place where the same or a similar ending occurs. Or he might unthinkingly copy an expression or line twice, because his eyes have skipped back up the page. Another error involves the transposition of words or expressions. The scribe retains a whole clause or verse in his memory as he writes; and his memory betrays him. It may further betray him by prompting him to substitute a favored synonym for some particular word. Again, the scribe may unwittingly assimilate some passage in one of the Gospels to the parallel in another Gospel that he has all but memorised. Such assimilation is also frequent in certain pain of epistles, such as the two I mentioned.

Other errors occurred when a scribe accidentally left out words, and the corrector put them in the margin. The next scribe reinserts the words into the text at the wrong place. Alternatively, the marginal note may have been a scribe's comment rather than part of the text; but the scribe who copied that MS might well have inserted the note into the new copy he was writing, so adding something that shouldn't be there. No malice involved, no intentional corruption of the text just an error of judgment. Some scribes went about their task so mechanically and thoughtlessly as to perpetrate almost unbelievable blunders.

[2] Intentional. The scribe intends to change what he has in front of him, and in the vast majority of instances he changes something he thinks is wrong. By "wrong" I don't mean he feels he knows more than God; rather, in most instances he changes things that he thinks the preceding scribe has corrupted. Sometimes too scribes tried to improve on grammar, vocabulary, and spelling, preferring the literary Attic Greek, of an earlier era to the colloquial Hellenistic Greek (the Koine) in which the NT was written.

Another kind of intentional corruption came about by the desire, conscious or not to harmonize one account with another. The evidence is that some copyists smoothed over such differences. Eg, If I say “the scribes," some will think immediately of the complementary adjunct, "and the Pharisees" and, sure enough, some copyists added it, wittingly or otherwise. Again, a scribe sometimes had many MSS in front of him when he made his copy. If he saw one MS had one reading, and a second another, he either chose one and left the other, or he put the two together to make a conflated reading. If some MSS preserve the reading "church of God" in Ac.20:28, and others preserve "church of the Lord," some later copyists conflate the two to produce "church of the Lord and God," providing their readers with the benefit of both readings.

I have not said that the MS tradition is entirely unreliable. The vast majority of errors have to do with details of orthography word order, and the like. And, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing MS with MS. The result is a certain word from God.

>>I am not being harsh with you. A case in point is your comment "So, is salvation dependent upon a Bible version or languages? Having asked the question, and assuming my answer - incorrectly - you then proceed to develop your own argument further and get into an manner of realms of fantasy. eg. "in order to read and the very Words of God, they must learn and read and speak English [and aid English at that]" in your second letter. So, to set the matter straight, I will slate clearly and simply what I believe, and then I will explain the reasons for such beliefs.. HERE IS MY STAND ON THE KJB<<

Well, imagine how careful I read this. But couldn't find anywhere an answer to my charge. [Which was - "that your doctrine makes a language vital to salvation. How can one know they are saved (or any doctrine) unless they team English and read "God's very Words" for themselves. The convert must not only Repent and Believe the Gospel, but in order to fully know the "very perfect, unaltered, Words of God" they must learn to read and speak English"]. You said I was wrong, but then went on to confirm I was right. I went through all the points on your stand for the KJV. In all honesty I think you need to do some serious thinking about these matters Dennis. Your doctrine makes the learning of English vital. If salvation is confirmed by English then salvation is linked to works, if not, then the KJV is just a version.

You write, the KJV is "...the word of God for the English speaking people...” And needed for "...soul­winning..." And you say because God has given the Bible in English it does not mean that 'only English speaking people can be saved, if or that 'non-English people can 't possibly brow God as well'. "You have never grasped the significance of the English language bible as being in God's plan for mankind...”

You write, "..God chose ONE language in which to reach the world"  Just as "Anyone desiring the word of God would have to convert to Judaism" [This links salvation and English KJV]. What verse do you have to prove God chose ONE language to reach the world? He did chose people out of every nation tribe and tongue to further that message to the ends of the earth. See 2 Thes.3.1 Mk.16.15 Ac.1.8 1 Pe.1.1-2.

You say, 'God chose Greek' the common language of the time, but Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost empowered the Gospel message in a multitude of languages Ac.2:6-8 "...a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: 'Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is at that each of us hears them in his own native language?" (See also vs.9-11). Jews from "every nation under the heaven" [vs.5] heard, responded and were saved. Some may have known Greek, but that didn't save them, it was the message. God didn't require any to learn Greek. By 382 when Jerome wrote the Latin version relatively few people in the Western Mediterranean could read Greek.

>>The English language had been developing for many centuries until the late sixteenth century. About that time it finally reached a state of excellence that no language on earth has ever attained, - even to this day. It would seem that God did the rest! He chose this perfect language' for the fulfilment of His perfect Book<<

Indeed, English has become a globe language, because it's so flexible. It evolves and changes to suit it's advances. Also, the English today is not the old English of 1611. Modern English is the predominant language of the world today. Why can't God use modem English? Because a language is always an expression of a culture, many countries have their own form of English. So what for you might a state of excellence, for someone else can be a linguistically obstacle course and their mother tongue is vital to them [And a translation they can understand].

Already answered this. But to 'preach the word' is to proclaim the doctrine of Christ crucified, for the sins of the world; the doctrine, that the Gentiles are invited to be fellow heirs with the Jews, and that for Jews and Gentiles there is no salvation but by faith in Christ. By rightly dividing the word of truth, we are to continuing in true doctrine. The expression 'Search the Scriptures'  addressed to the Pharisees, Ye search the Scriptures diligently. [Jn.5.39]. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly - I believe the apostle means that we should be well instructed in the doctrine of Christ, that it should be our constant study; that it should be frequently preached, explained, and enforced among us; and that all the wisdom comprised in it should be well understood. Thus the doctrine of God would dwell richly, that is, abundantly, among us. The sword of the Spirit (Eph.6.17] of which Paul speaks is, as he explains it, the word of God; that is, the revelation which God has given of himself, or what we call the Holy Scriptures. This is called the sword of the Spirit, because it comes from the Holy Spirit, and receives its fulfilment in the soul through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

Notice I wrote about Jude 25, "if I were being vindictive I would suggest the translators of the KJV were heretical modernists trying to expunge references to Christ as Mediator.' I proved that there are ^“..instances which the KJV omits words or phrase: that other versions retain" The oldest MSS have 'through Jesus Christ our Lord" . Transcribers fancying that 'Saviour' applied to Christ alone, omitted the words [God is called Saviour elsewhere in the NT - 1 Tim.1.1 2.3 4.10 Tit.1.3 2.10 3.4]. The sense is, "To the only God [the Father] who is our Saviour through [ie., the mediation of] Jesus Christ our Lord”. The point is that one does not give glory to God nor come to God apart from through Christ This has nothing to do with New Age "channels' and "channeling”. Read the KIV in 1 Tim.2:5 Heb.8:6 9:15 12:24 & see how silly that sounds. 

You seek to 'demonstrate' that the translations of the words from one language to another could "…not be better than the originals".. You say," every example, the translation is an improvement over the original”. I agree, God has "..translated us into His kingdom", And "Enoch was translated, that he should not see death" . I agree, but these examples have nothing to do with men translating words on paper. They reveal God's perfect actions. Translating Scripture however, is the work of weak men. Do you understand the meaning of the Biblical word 'translation'? The Greek for "translation" in Col.1.13 'methistemi' or methistano' means - 'remove, turn away’. Heb.11.5 'metatithermi' meaning to ‘transfer to another place, carry, change, remove, turn'. [No wonder modern versions differ then the KJV]. Note the word, Ezr.4.7, 18 He.7.2 [NIV] for any true translation requires that the translator not attempt to retain a word for-word or structure-for-structure rendering of the old into the new. Rather the translator must make every effort to express accurately in the receptor language the precise meaning of the original, a procedure that demands interpretation.

>>Timothy certainly did not possess any "originals'- but he DID possess the Scriptures. And it is the same EVERYWHERE in the bible. When God talks about "the scriptures" he is not talking about the original autographs and manuscripts. He is referring to something that the reader held in his hands Mark, why not check it out for yourself? Do you seriously believe that Timothy, and his mother, and his grandmother had' the original autographs of Moses and Isaiah etc? Obviously, in these few examples [and there are many others:] the 'scriptures' does NOT refer to the originals" So what does it refer to? You tell me, Mark<<

I see your point. But if I accept your comment here I'm forced to admit that all translations [we call the "Scriptures"] are inspired by God, just as the copies held in the hands of Timothy or Paul. Do you believe that? If we had a copy of the very text Paul, Timothy or Jeremiah held in their hand; that would be regarded today as 'the original autographs'. Although only a copy to them, to us they are the documents from the days of the Bible characters. You say God regards a ".. copy just as authoritative as are the “originals” referring to Deut.17;18, Josh.8:32 etc., as examples. Yes, true. In fact, the labours of competent scholars have brought our English versions to a degree of perfection so remarkable that we may confidently rest upon them as authoritative.  God regards the NIV copy as authoritative as the “originals"

>>it is the words themselves that God is concerned with preserving. Now this seems to present a problem to the academic. He seems to have a mind-set with 'Dynamic Equivalents' and theorises that a perfect translation is impossible because the exact meaning of words of one language can't be transferred into another language. But is this really so? Certainly not if God is involved!... Just suppose that God wanted to translate, - would that translation be perfect? Of course it would!<<

I didn't say, "...the exact meaning of words of one language can't be transferred into another language". Those are your words. I said the words of one language will always be the words of that language. If God said He would 'preserve^’ His words - where are they? To the Psalmist God's words were in Hebrew and regardless how careful, how literal the translation of those 'very' words into English the result is still English words. This questions your idea of translating "words".

Translations [as said before] do not have the same degree of inspiration as the originals. When Paul writes "God breathed" he means that God Himself or through His Holy Spirit, told the writers of the Bible just the very things to record. The Bible is God's final revelation to man. The mode of Divine revelation and inspiration ceased with the book of Revelation. God has given no further revelation since John penned the last part of the Scriptures. God has fresh truths break forth from His Word, but He does not add to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The scholar's and saints of the year 1611 didn't experience a new inspiration and revelation added to the faith by the publication of the KJV 1611. If you want me to believe a translation can have the same divine inspiration as the originals, then that suggests all translations can experience the same application.

“Dynamic equivalents” has nothing to do with "perfect or inspired translations" It's a description of a process translators undertake selecting words from one language that describe what has been written in the other. If it is over-done the translation will become too literal. In thousands of instances, the person who translates the NT Greek into some other language must make decisions as to the meaning of a passage. Translating is not merely a mechanical process. Nothing to do with how Jesus quoted the OT in the NT.

>>Can I be sure that God has really PRESERVED His precious words? Well this is plainly taught in Matt.24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Ps. 12:7, Ps. 119:160, 1 Pet 1:25 - isn't that enough?<<

I have always believed 'the Word of the Lord' endureth forever' and God preserved it. This doesn't refer to the original MSS or mean the RV., NIV etc are not actuate copies of those words. There are good/bad translations.  You call the KJ today "unaltered”, yet it was altered. You call it "preserved" yet we don't have a word for word 1611 today. You say 'without error', yet the Apocrypha was included [1 error fails the test].

>>Mark, one can talk ad' infinitum about the different manuscripts, but basically, there are only two lines or types of texts... every bible comes from either one, or the other<<

Classification of some MSS is not precise so they are called "mixed". There's not just two text-types. [1] There's the Byzantine. Most of this stands behind the KJV and there are a great many MSS in this tradition. But most of these MSS are relatively late. [2] The Western. There is considerable dispute about this text-type' some scholars having differing views. [3] The Caesarean. Which probably began in Egypt and is a mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings. [4] The Alexandrian. This was probably prepared by trained scribes in Alexandria [not Egypt] and it has excellent credentials, far better than it's harshest critics have been willing to concede. Tradition has it that St Mark carried the Gospel to Alexandria. But from this city Christianity reached all Egypt and entered Nubia, Ethiopia and  Abyssinia. Ten councils were held there as it was the theological and ecclesiastical center of Christendom. Textual critics now have an abundance of evidence from which it is frequently difficult to decide which text-type is superior: why should it be thought better to return to any one text-type exclusively when God in His providence has provided us with such wealth?

I'm amazed in the way you cite arguments in your favour without examining those arguments. And your presuppositions in flavour of the TR have made you careless about determining the truth of many of your claims. As a result not only is your interpretation of the facts incorrect, but also your alleged 'facts' are simply untrue. I would like to quote people here who have first hand knowledge of the data.

"Some of the literature put out by the KJO people give the impression that the great 4th century uncials, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (N) are the only exemplars of the Alexandrian text; and therefore, it is argued, the Alexandrian text is itself a product of the 4th century. This is clearly not true, as the more able defenders of the TR have been forced to admit - Not only is the Alexandrian text-type found in some biblical quotations by ante-Nicene fathers, but the text-type is also attested by some of the early version witnesses. More convincing yet, Greek papyri from the second and 3rd centuries have shown up none of which reflects a Byzantine text and most of which have a mixed Alexandrian/Western text. The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type".  

[These points above have been clearly demonstrated and much discussed. For more recent bibliography cf E.F.Harrison (Introduction to the NT rev. ed. Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1971 p.28) and articles by Cordon D Fee]

"In addition it has been shown that' the Alexandrian text has another point in its favour. Any text-type is either recensional or not recensional By "recensional" it means text has come into being by conscious revision, editing, or conflation, or by change over a period of time as part of a directed developing process. If this does not explain the genesis of a particular text, then that text is simply the copy of a copy of a copy, it is not a recension at all. If the later were so in the case of B, it would mean that the Alexandrian tradition, especially as preserved in B and a few others, is the best text-type now extant that is, it is closest to the original. And that is precisely the position being advanced in some recent first-class textual work.

This does not mean that the Alexandrian tradition is to be preferred in all cases. The external evidence must be weighted text-type by text-type, and that evidence must in turn be weighed against the internal evidence. Even Westcott and Hort, after all, thought Byzantine readings were best in some instances. The consciousness that complexities exist is precisely what prompts the vast majority of contemporary textual critics, evangelical and otherwise to opt for an eclectic text".

[See Cf. Cordon D Fee, "p.75 266, and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria, "New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Ed R.N Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1974) pp.19-45] You comment - 'the R T, or Majority Text' -

>>This is represented by more than 5,000 mss, and is thus rightly known as the Majority Text. Its is the text of the Reformation and Bible-believing Churches, and is traceable right back to Antioch, [where the believers were first called Christians]. This text does not come to us through the Roman church, but through the Greek church and its manuscripts. The very first published printed Greek NT came from this text-type, Erasmus, Stephens, Colinaeus, Beza, and Elzivir [from which came the term TR or "Textus Receptus"] were names associated with this text-line. The English texts of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, and the Great Bible, Bishops Bible and Geneva Bible adhered rigidly to this<<

The argument to the effect that what the majority of believers in the history of the church have believed is true, is ambiguous at best and theologically dangerous at worst. And as applied to textual criticism proves nothing very helpful anyway. What do your terms "believers" and "church" mean? Do we place the terms in the evangelical tradition and mean regenerate believers and "believers' church"? Might not this exclude Erasmus himself the man behind the TR? Or by "believers" do we mean "adherents to the Christian faith" "Christian faith" being loosely defined and related vaguely to Christendom? How many believers in either case have ever thought through the problems of textual criticism and believed anything about the textual tradition? Most have just used what others around them have used. Moreover such an argument, I suspect, would justify infant baptism, Arminianism (if not semi-Pelagianism!) and other viewpoints to which at least some Christians would not appreciate. Since when has the majority opinion defined what is true, even majority evangelical opinion? Carson adds some useful comment -

"There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the 4^th  century. This is established by: [1] determining if there are any Greek MSS of pre-A.D. 350 date which reflect the Byzantine text-type, [2] examining pre-A.D. 350 versions for the same information; [3] reading the N.T. quotations found in the writings of the pre-A.D. 350 church fathers to discover if the biblical passages quoted approximate any particular text-type. In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the 4th century. While readings found in the Byzantine text- type are found in the ante-Nicene period; most of these readings are also found in other text-types [mostly Western] In any case the early existence of a text-type can be established not merely by appeal to numbers of readings, but only by appeal to numbers of readings in conjunction with discrete patterns of readings. Discrete readings that are Byzantine and something else offer, at best, ambiguous evidence. It has not been proved conclusively that the Byzantine text-type did not exist before the 4th century. However, although there is not unambiguous historical evidence that it existed before the 4th century, there is clear historical evidence that the other three textual traditions do stretch back to this ante-Nicene period.

The Byzantine text is a secondary text. Textual critics who pore over MSS [or photographs and transcriptions of them] begin to detect clear signs of secondary influence. For example, harmonisation is, indisputably, a secondary process. In general scribes do not purposely introduce difficulties into the text; they try to resolve them. One might argue that particularly heterodox scribes might well make a text more complicated. However, a heterodox scribe is likely to change the theological content rather than relatively minor historical and geographical details, and many case the Byzantine tradition does not reflect merely an odd MS given to harmonisation, but rather the whole tradition. This is especially so in the Synoptic Gospels. In the article to which I have just referred, Fee points out a particular section in which the Byzantine text contains some 38 major harmonisation's, as compared with one harmonisation in the Alexandrian text. Thus prompted, I made some checks myself in other passages and found similar proportions. The only way to circumvent the evidence is to deny that they are harmonisation's, or to argue that harmonisation's are not secondary; those who spend their time poring over the primary data find this very difficult" (pg.44f The King James Version Debate D.A. Carson. Baker Book House).

So your argument that ties the adoption of the TR to verbal inspiration is unbelievable. It causes concern and reflects two serious misapprehension’s. The first concerns the nature and purpose of textual criticism: and the nature and definition of verbal inspiration. In your mind these are related and shown by the way you support the argument quoting the well-known passages that affirm the inspiration of Scripture and a few that affirm the sanctity and immutability of God's work. (eg. Dt.4:2 Pro.30:5-6 Ps.119:89,32 Rev.22:19 etc). These verses are so frequently cited as if their existence entails the adoption of the TR. Even if your interpretation of the verses were correct, you have an insoluble problem in the Byzantine tradition itself [ie No two MSS agree perfectly]. So if your argument is to be taken as you to want me to take it, your own preferred TR falls under condemnation along with the others. There's only slight differences between the textual variants within one textual tradition and those found when two or more textual traditions are compared. If verbal inspiration is theologically tied to one textual tradition, it does not escape the kind of problems presented if more than one textual tradition be admitted. The TR in particular has major problems to overcome. A dozen readings in the KJV have no support in any Greek MS. The last few verses of Revelation can be traced back to Erasmus who had to prepare a Greek MS for these by translating back from the Vulgate. If you condemn those who add to God's Word, you must urge us to throw away our KJV along with the other "perversions" you speak of.

If the verses you quote mean that one or another of the textual traditions is eminently pure, it doesn't necessary follow that the text is the Byzantine. When we turn to Jn.5.3b-4 and find it missing in the earlier witness [a great many MSS] we conclude it was not in the original. Those who tie inspiration with textual criticism are those outside the evangelical camp. Tell me Dennis, do you know of anyone who claims anyone particular extant MS is inerrant? Such a claim is silly because a text-type is shown by comparing MSS and grouping those in common and accepting the most probable reading. Common sense tells us [or me at least] that inspiration is ascribed only to the autographs.

>>You comment that the modem translation: have texts that weren't available to the 1611 translators, and in particular, you mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, Beatty and Bodmer. And of course there are others. With respect, none of these mss have added anything that was not already available in the mss which the KJB translators already had at their finger tips. There is nothing new in any of them. You should know this Mark<<

Here's a classic example of the bold statements made without researching the facts. It's well 'known' that the discovery of older and better MSS for both Testaments enables today's scholars to have a sounder text of the original to translate. Several outstanding Greek MSS of the NT have come to light in this century. The oldest of these were written on papyrus. One of the most important collections of biblical papyrus MSS was acquired in 1930/31 by Chester Beatty and is now in the Beatty museum in a suburb of Dublin. Three of these were NT codices. One contained portions of 30 leaves of an estimated original 220 of the four Gospels and Acts dated in the 1st half of the 3rd century. Another, dated around 200, has 86 leaves of an original 104 of 10 of Paul's Epistles. The third comprises 10 of an estimated original 32 leaves of the Book of Revelation from the middle or latter part of the 3rd century.

More recently, about 1956, another collection of papyrus MSS of the NT came into the hands of M.Bodmer, a Genevan bibliophile. They are now in the Bodmer Library of World Literature at Cologny, a suburb of Geneva. Among them was a papyrus codex MS known as Bodmer Papyrus II, containing most of the Gospel of John, and dated by the editor, V.Martin, Professor of Classical Philology at Geneva, about AD.200. Another MS in the group contains the earliest-known copies of Jude and 1 and 2 Peter. The editor, M.Testuz dates it in the 3rd century. A 3rd codex contains the oldest known copy of Luke and one of the earliest of John. The editors, V.Martin and Rodolph & Kasser date it between AD.175 and 225. It would be difficult to overestimate the textual importance of these newly acquired witnesses for the wording of the NT. Besides these, the most important early MSS known before the 20th century were not fully utilised by the major translations.

For the OT there are the world famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 and since. The biblical scrolls among them are so sensationally significant because they have carried our knowledge of the Hebrew Bible back a thousand years. Before their discovery, apart from a few scraps, the oldest Hebrew MS known were dated toward the end of the 9th century AD. But now there are MSS to be dated as early as the 1st century B.C. These discoveries have their bearing on the conclusion of scholars regarding the original wording of the sacred Scriptures. In the second place along with the discovery of these earlier MSS, there has developed a better understanding of the meaning of these original languages. This is largely due to the wonderful archaeological discoveries of the past century. As an illustration of this significant point, there are the discoveries of nonliterary papyri that have shown what many of the Greek words used by NT writers meant in daily life. For the study of the OT languages there is an abundance of written documents such as the Amarna Tablets, the Lachish Letters, the Jewish Aramaic papyri, and the Canaanite Tablets found at Ugarit, to name but a few.

All of these have given scholars a better understanding of what the languages of the Bible really mean. Such knowledge must be reflected in better translations. Earlier translations such as the KJV did not have the advantage of these tremendous discoveries The KJV was dependent on late MSS of the Middle Ages which bad been corrupted as they were copied and recopied by hand through the ages. Translators today have access to MSS that are in some cases less than a century removed from the autographs. As a result; today we have translations more in harmony with what the apostles actually wrote. New understandings of the original languages through archaeological discoveries have helped to shed light on obscure passages and have aided us in understanding some passages better than they were understood before.

Although it seems impossible that cults quote the KJV believe me they do. I am not 'deceiving' you. Their books and literature indicate the fact [not a 'suggestion']. They hide behind "ambiguity" and 'they know' how to use it. Often they quote the KJV to me supporting their doctrines and ask me not to use modern versions. I have studied cults for years and know how they work. Repeatedly one can discover their falsehood by simply opening a modern version and reading it. True, some churches today don^’t use the KJV, some don't take notice of any version, You write -

>>Your letter questions the ability and knowledge of the 1611 translators. I wonder if  you have ever seriously read and checked their scholarship, and more importantly the depth of their faith and the “godliness” of these men. (I hate using this word, but I have no other]. From your letter, I doubt that you have. You should read Translators Revived by Alexander McClure, and The Men Behind The King James Version by Gustavus Paine. I am happy to lend these to you. These men were scholars of unparalleled ability, and it would be crazy to suggest that today's scholars could ever equal, let alone surpass, those who gave us the KJB. I do not have space here to comment further on these wonderful men<<

This seems to contradict your earlier comments about scholars. You condemned a Bible that "...requires academic or theologians to decide which parts are right and which parts are wrong... our authority is no longer the Word of God but opinion of man. This is the absolute bottom line... does one trust a Book or the opinion of a man ?" The KJV is such a Bible. Your admiration for these KJV scholars even excuses their inclusion the Apocrypha which they persevered among His words. You apparently regard "good scholars" as those who agree with you and 'bad scholars" those who don't. I wrote about today's KJV.

Yet its certainly not the “unaltered” word for word 1611. Words have been added, some taken out, some printed in roman type to indicate that they had no exact equivalent in the original. They were added to make the translation conform to English. The 1762 Cambridge edition differed from the 1611 in at least 75,000 details. The 1611 today would be unreadable for the typography, spelling and punctuation. To say , the KJV is the unaltered 1611 is questionable, its been altered many times' . Your say -

>>Mark, with the greatest respect, I wonder where you got all this garbage from? And why you seem to blindly believe it? It is just NOT TRUE, which I will prove in a moment... The TEXT of the KJB which I can hold in my hands today, is the SAME TEXT which the KJB translators delivered to King James in 1611. They only produced one manuscript, there was only one set of "originals" as it were, and I have the exact text of that MSS in my JKB<<

This is not 'garbage'. I can only imagine what concerns you is the implications of changes and alterations. I said the KJV has "been altered many times". You replied, "..is this so? No, Mark, you are absolutely wrong, and I can prove it". And provided the photocopies of the 1627 & 1982 KJV. These confirm two points [1] A lack of readability. You said I "will have no trouble reading it... even though it still has the old type-face letter V for U and vice-verse". But it was difficult because of the spelling. The original 1611 was  worse. Those with limited English background would find them impossible to read. [2] The 1627 copy  revealed a 100 CHANGES compared with today's KJV. An alteration is an alteration, and there have been many in the KJV over the years.

Dennis there are books on this subject, what I'm about to tell you is no secret or  "garbage". The KJV used today differs markedly from the one originally printed in 1611. I agree it is not a new translation but a improved edition of the old 1611. Yet at the very first, this version was not static or fixed. Attempts to update the language, while at the same time preserving its basic literary structure HAVE occurred. Like its predecessor, the Bishop's Bible of which it was a revision, the first edition was printed in a large folio size using a block letter type, except for the comparatively few words printed in roman type to indicate that they had no exact equivalents in the original but were added to make the translation conform to English idiom. [Check these things out in "So Many Versions? Kubo & Specht Academie Books].

In 1612, in imitation of the Geneva Bible, the whole version was printed in quarto sin with roman type, and the "supplied” words in italics. A revision containing more than 300 differences from the 1611 edition was published in 1613. Sharp criticisms of the version by such men as Hugh Broughton forced the Cambridge University Press to publish a further revision in 1629. In 1638 an attempt was made to produce an "authentique corrected Bible" by a small committee that included two of the original translators. 15 years later [1653] the Long Parliament called for another revision because of errors in printing, translation, and language. But when Cromwell, the "Lord Protector," dissolved Parliament and took over the government, nothing came of the proposal. A revision in the spelling was made in 1675 by John Fell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford.

More extensive revisions were made in the 18th century. In 1762 Dr. Thomas Paris of Trinity College, Cambridge, published his newly corrected edition. This was followed by the publication of the results of nearly 4 years of intensive work by Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford in 1769. I reread your letter and researched further and found J. Isaac's summary of the changes Blayney made. In “The Authorised Version and After,” Ancient and English Versions, H.W Robinson ed, p225, he wrote,

  The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running head notes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced and a thorough revision was made in the form of certain kinds of words: “fetched" was substituted for “fet”, “burned” for “burnt”, "lifted" for "lift," "since "for "sith," in 35 instances "more” was written for moe, and in 364 "ye "for "you”. " Dr. Paris had already altered "neesed" to "sneezed," "cruddled" to "curdled," and "glistering" to "glittering”.

You say there is "24,000 differences between the 1611 edition and not the 75,000 which you quote. Your figure is wrong".  You admit to "24,000 differences". Well, guess who wrote this,

>>if you change ANYTHING you are a bible corrector!"<<

I'll tell you - (Which Bible is Really the Word of God? Pg.16.  DENNIS 1983) That word  “anything" I suppose means "certain things” Perhaps you could explain what it means? It appears the "Bible Correctors" have been busy with the KJV.  It was Goodspeed who estimated today’s edition to differ from that of the 1611 in at least 75,000 details, this has become the standard form of the KJV in use today. This  indicates that perhaps the changes have been more than you admit.  So to say that “...the KJB that we have today is exactly word-for word as the original text produced by the translators in 1611" is ignoring the facts. The differences are apparent for those prepared to knowledge them. The fact is Dennis another word for 'differences' is "changes" and another word is "alterations". You use these words to suit yourself. In modern versions these changes you call “corruption's" and "perversions". In the KJV "such changes did not alter the TEXT" in other versions they 'corrupted the text deceitfully’ A change is a change and a alteration an alteration in anyone's language but yours. You wrote,

>>The Apocrypha was never part of the text of the KJ 1611 bible at any time. The early editions included it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers, in much the same way that maps are often included in today's bibles. The KJB translators rejected the Apocrypha as divine, and they listed 7 reasons for doing so !! Critics of the KJ seem to conveniently forget that the Apocrypha was an integral part of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian mss, and the Vaticanus codex and Sinaiticus codex which both have this, treat its inclusion [as does the RC church] as divine. It is also found in all present day RC Bibles, and in some of the “Official" RC versions of the GN; LB, NIV<<

You say, "he Apocrypha was never part of the text of the KJ 1611 bible at any time". Yet it was part and translated for the 1611. Books that contain errors in the areas of geography and history. They contradict themselves, the Bible and history. They teach and uphold beliefs that contradict the canonical books. Lying is sanctioned, suicide and assassination are justified, salvation by works and by almsgiving, magical incantations, prayers of the dead for the dead, etc. There is a noticeable style and flow difference between these books and the books of the canon. The books contain many absurdities. When reading the Bible and then reading the apocryphal books there is a noticeable difference. The two do not belong together and constitute an error in the 1611.

The 'Unanswered Questions' you list are identical [word for word] to a list of questions I answered in 1989. I suggest radicals don't want them answered because they  cannot admit they are wrong anywhere. If a part of argument is answered, it defeats the whole. If you are sincere go through this letter and see how I have answered them already, or include those requiring an answer in your next letter. Some of the questions are very aggressive. I note question (d). That basically calls any who doesn't use the KJV yet believes the Bible is God's Word, a "hypocrite".

I noticed comments coming from KJO advocates calling anyone who disagrees "ignorant" and "stupid". The Apostle John says in 1 Jn.4.9-l2 that love-less-ness was the evidence for him that a man was not in the truth. The test and evidence of authentic spirituality according to John was in a word “love”. I want to finish this letter with some general observations. The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians. I refer to the language, not the content; for the content is always incomprehensible to the man without the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14)]. Any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word and allows that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable and almost unconscionable.

Some argue they like the KJV. I respect this, especially if accompanied by an honest recognition of the general inadequacy of the other arguments in favour of the KJV. I too was brought up on this version and what I have memorised from Scripture still comes out in that form. Although the awkwardness of the KJV language makes it hard to memorise. My move to other versions was facilitated by two factors not shared by all: [1] I began to rely more on the original languages and less on the KJV and [2] for quite a while I moved in student circles. If a large part of an entire congregation enjoys this deep personal and emotional tie to the  KJV, it is certainly the better part of wisdom to tread lightly when it comes to instituting changes.

Nevertheless some changes are inevitable. For a start, some young people will begin reading modern versions. So a congregation should become sufficiently aware of the strengths and weaknesses of various translations so its members do not become defensive and wary, primed to accept every argument in favour of the KJV. If the spiritual leaders endorse only the KJV and either ban everything else or ignore all other versions in the hope that they will go away, those leaders may rest assured that the younger believers will find their own modem versions. Regrettably, lacking the knowledge that could have promoted the NIV or the NASB, this younger generation will probably opt for the LB. Thus even where a senior saint has a deep emotional commitment to the KJV, he will probably be wise to make himself familiar with the best of the modern versions and to be prepared to recommend one of them to others who may not share his commitment to the KJV.

Hope I have given enough material to ponder.

Regards.

Mark

Before anything else existed there was Christ, with God, He has always been alive and is Himself God Jn.1.1 LB