Want Some Answers ???

CONTENTS

Thanks Roger,

>>My you certainly like the term "radical"  I guess you think that anyone that believes the KJV is God's Word is a radical.<<

Oh no, certainly not. I took the name 'radical' from one who named himself a radical - Tom Lamb  - Website: http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/tlamb   I use this name referring to these people. I can't call them something nice, because their behaviour is far from just another doctrinal position in mainstream Christianity.  I'm not calling names for names sake. Besides it accurately describes the people who make radical claims. You wrote,

>>Oh well. You would get along very well with your brethren in the Westar Institute,  The Jesus Seminar people.<<

That's a good point Roger. I might seem like one of them. But I'm with you regarding the 'Seminar'. Their methodology is flawed and their conclusions. So their results are highly questionable. The explanations they give for some almost indisputable historical events, such as why Jesus was killed and why the early Church began, are also weak. I would call them 'radicals' as well.  I'm not a modernist as you think. You wrote,

>>You are also very good at raising a straw man and then proving the straw man wrong.  I think maybe your scholarship is a little faulty.That is fine.<<

Well, I'm still learning. I'm a slow learner; if I misunderstand, forgive me. I like to think things through and study them.  I will continue to study and ponder these matters long after the last person writes, and you have been helpful. You wrote,

>>You can find my answer in Col. 1:14.  You can use those from inferior MS and take the blood out but I think I will just trust God to do what He said.<<

Col.1:14 is an example of harmonization by scribes. If we compare the KJV with modern translations there appears a problem - KJV  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even  the forgiveness of sins NIV  in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NASB in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The words are an example of how parallel passages caused scribes to harmonize. The source of the phrase comes from the parallel passage in Eph.1:7 which reads -
KJV In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
NIV In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
NASB In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

The Phrase through his blood, in Eph1:7 is found immediately after In whom we have redemption.. So we can see how scribes have inadvertently, inserted the phrase in Col.1:14.  So instead of asking why modern translations lack the phrase,  we should ask, how do you know someone didn't add the phrase? There's many examples that could be shown indicating the tendency of scribes to use the most common way of saying things, often resulting in this kind of harmonization.

 In modern translation work,  translators seek early, good and many texts. The problem with the 1611, as you know, was that the translators only had a few and late texts.  Early texts don't have the addition in Col.1:14. Modern translations contain the phrase in Eph.1:7  because translators were seeking to translate the best Greek text. The best Greek has this reading in Eph.1:7.  If we think the lack of this phrase in Col.1:14 somehow alters the gospel itself then we have an extremely strained view of how one determines the gospel message from the text of Scripture.  There is no conspiracy or bad methodology occurring in the NIV or NASB. But it's true that there are good and bad translations of various verses. And people will always prefer one version to another.

>>Why does that bother you Liberals so much?  If I can be a "radical" you can be a liberal.<<

As I see it, there are two forms of Liberalism. One denies the traditional doctrines of the Christian faith and the other challenges the authenticity, historicity and divine inspiration of the Bible. These two forms are generally connected in varying degree, yet one might hold one without the other. I don't hold with either. For them Jesus is merely a great moral teacher and they want Christianity free from the constricting trammels of the traditional doctrines and creeds.  But those who disagree with my stand on the KJV have called me worse things. You wrote,

>>I could send you stuff but the material is so available to anyone honest I will let you look it up yourself.  Liberals are so closed minded and really in kind to those that disagree with them.<<

Thanks for that, I'll look it up. But I think liberals are closer to latitudinarianism. In other words, they are open to anything and everything and that's their problem. They hate the extremes of 'Puritan fanaticism and extremism', which they would include me.

>>I have seen more venom come from your side than the fringe Ruckmanites types.<<

I have never read Ruckman. The bad language I referred to was from the publications of the KJ Only people.  KJ Only people seem to have lots of nasty comments about others, apparently part their doctrine, which they defend as scriptural. Maybe, you have seen something I haven't. I do know however, there have been some very unchristian things written by radicals. I haven't seen anything from 'the other side' [perhaps you have] then that's not good either. But what I have seen and read is very damaging to the KJ error.

Perhaps I read literature from one side more than the other. I read the KJ literature, hear their tapes etc and there's too many bad things written.  Antagonism is one of the most damaging aspects to KJ doctrine. As evangelicals we don't always agree on every aspect of Bible doctrine but surely we must practice the old saying, 'In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity'. And surely, 'if something is true it can stand to be questioned, if it is not true it needs to be questioned'. Cults also display such antagonism to mainstream Christianity and those who question their doctrine.

Anyway, thanks Roger. I don't want to be a nuisance to you. No need to sent me anything further. I keep reading studying etc. Thanks for your time. Kind regards.
Mark

___________________________________

Hi John

Thanks for the mail. I'll take you off my list and put you on the closed-minded one. Although perhaps it's the KJ website mail list that really concerns you?  If your not interested in what people think about the KJV, why have a email address on the KJV website?

But if the KJ website answered their mail I wouldn't have troubled you. Yet, your mail had lots to say for one who's not "interested". I like this part -

>>As Wilberforce probably told Westcott & Hort on his way out the door of the RV Committee..."I ain't interested in what you think of the KJV any more than I am interested in what Darwin thinks about finches and moths."<<

I don't know if Wilberforce used those words. Just shows how language changes and why newer translations must speak the language of the people. Interesting Wilberforce spent most of life taking opium [regarded a pure drug in those days]. I don't know if that effected what he 'probably' said to Westcott & Hort, however. You wrote,

>>You started this thing off telling me I was a cult.  Now there's a real way to win friends and influence people.<<

I never said you were a cult. I wrote,  "The error of the KJ radicals is similar to a cult - Many of the cult 'traits' mentioned are found in this group." Obviously my mail hit a nerve, with your doctrine. You wrote,

>>If you truly were interested in finding the "real" Word of God,<<

The real test of inspiration is that the Bible finds me, not that I find it. Sad for the many who can't speak English, they could find the "real" Bible but couldn't read it. That puts them at a disadvantage and the millions of others who can't read English like you. Without the "real" Bible, how can they know they are saved? How can they know any doctrine? They can't. I guess God just loves English speakers. You wrote,

>>you would go back in your history books and manuscripts and look for the blood.Those who say it doesn't matter which version you use should understand that it mattered enough to the saints of the dark ages and the reformation that they were willing to die rather than give it up.<<

Not in the history books I read. Translators have paid with blood translating Scripture for common people. To them it didn't 'matter which version' but as long as it was one a common man can read and UNDERSTAND. But the KJ radicals call translators "arrogant bible correctors" who are doing the work of Satan.  Describing them as part of "the most vicious and malicious attempted assassination of the word of God ever seen on plant earth". Yes translators, who are willing to die rather than give up translating are described as, " - the most dangerous enemy of the word of God". You wrote,

>>Today's "saints" wouldn't shed their blood for their "easy-to-read" versions (would you?)<<

They are right now. Christians in China are paying the price for having bibles [and it's not the KJV]. In the East they pray churches in the West give money for translation work and for more Bibles, which they need NOW. They want "easy-to-read" Bibles [not a KJV]. And they never grizzle about translation differences and make-up conspiracy theories. If your KGB mob ruled the world, think of all the Bibles they would burn. The saints then would gladly "shed their blood for easy to read versions" (Yes I would too). You ignore the blood that has already been shed so you can read the KJV and are not forced to learn Latin. You wrote,

>>They seem much more interested in "profitability" much more than in prophecy.  Or they are just interested in getting their "agenda" into God's Word.<<

The Bible has been translated into over 1700 different languages and it's the best seller around the world. If the KJ radicals had "their agenda", they would stop all that. Millions would be denied Scripture. You wrote,

>> By the way...what is your agenda in trying to discourage people who hold to the KJV?  People with their new versions seem to take great pleasure in looking down their "educated" noses at us...OK have a ball "doctor".<<

I wonder why you discourage people asking questions and reading the Bible "pastor"?  The KJ radical agenda puts two classes in the Christian church.
[1] Those who can't speak English and so can't read "the real Word of God".
[2] And the educated intellectuals who can, and so don't use "Satanic counterfeits" [Which group would look down on others?]. You wrote,

>>Bottom line is this:Things that are different are not the same.The new versions take out the Holy Ghost, the blood, the trinity and make Satan the "morning star".  Pretty soon, they'll put their "global messiah" in the place of Jesus (I know you don't believe that, but please remember I told you so when it happens).<<

This conspiracy theory has never been proven. It remains only in the minds of KJ radicals. If you read my other emails you would see why I reject it. One radical wrote -  "Find the Blood,Virgin Birth,Deity,Hell,in these new versions you cannot" I replied,
'I can look' -
Blood - NIV - Eph.1:7 2:13 6:12 Col.1:20 Heb.2:14 9:7 [occurs 92 NT alone]
Virgin - NIV - Mt.1:23 Lk.1:34  1 Cor.7:28,34,36,37,38  2 Cor.11:2
Birth - NIV - Mt.1:18,21,23,25 24:8 Mk.13:8 Lk.1:14,15,31,57 2:7
Deity - NIV - Col.2:9 [This word does NOT occur in the KJV - Why not ?]
Hell - NIV - Mt.5:22,29,30 10:28 18:9 23:15,33 Mk.9:43,45,47 Lk.12:5 [14
times] Where's your conspiracy theory now? You wrote,

>>Finally, if you were really interested in having a "discussion" you would have put the email addresses of all your recipients on your letter so receivers could "reply to all" or you would have mailed via a list server or news group.  You would have also identified yourself with a church or organization so everyone would know where you are coming from. <<

I never mentioned the word "discussion" in my email. But people have freedom to reply. Many did and still are. You would be more annoyed if no opportunity was given to respond. I thought the KJ website was it's own little news-group, unfortunately one or two on the list are not "interested". You wrote,

>>Instead, you just come out of your little anonymous email box attacking people as cults. You just want to exalt yourself by putting others down.  So just leave us out of your little game in the future "doctor."<<

That's a joke. I've been reading the "Bible Believers Bulletin" etc and the other radical publications. And around the world its the same KJ radicals are 'putting others down'. They don't leave me out of "hate  literature". Those who use other versions or those who question/challenge the KJ doctrine are called - "lairs, fools, dung, stupid-jerks, dogs, blasphemers, bigots, brain-washed, up-starts, hypocrites, deceitful" etc. Some comments are slanderous, others libel. You people with your 'little game' target individuals - print their names and address and send nasty mail and abusive phone-calls. This ridicule and antagonism is very damaging to your KJ claims "pastor".  

Mark
___________________________

Hi there bro

Thanks for your mail. I'll answer it so you know I read it. Some of the discussion is really enjoyable. The meaning of Ps.12  you wrote,

>>My Answer Re-read the King James.  IT is not referring to Israel.  V1 Mentions "Children of men."  That does not equate to the Israelites.<<

You will need to provide more information than a reference to "children of men" in vs.1. As I wrote vs7 "refers to the Israelites not a Bible translation."  OT scholars believe this Psalm was most likely written during the Babylonish captivity. God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to His word; He separated them from that generation and reinstated them in their own land, according to His word; and most certainly He has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner. So all the words spoken against Israel have come to nothing.

[I know the KJV mentions this Psalm was one of David's. What's your view regarding the margin and footnotes in the KJV? Are they inspired and free from error? And the punctuation, letters?]

But vs.1 does tell us something about the Psalm. It is not about writing down on paper and looking at the 'individual' Hebrew words of what God promised. Vs.6 is not saying God is going to preserve those MSS forever. The fact God didn't preserve those MSS is evident in that we don't have them today. Yes God's promises can be trusted, but it's not referring to MSS or translations. There is nothing in this whole Psalm referring to the KJV or MSS. You wrote,

>>It says "preserve them." Since it's talking about the words of GOd I must trust He then means the words of GOD.  It makes no reference to the children of Israel.<<

I see this as preserving people, not 'very words of God'. Even if I take your argument in the way you want, for the Psalmist God's words were in Hebrew. Regardless of how careful and how literal the translation of those words into English, the result is still English words. The semantic range of the English word will seldom (if ever) correspond exactly to the semantic range of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word (or expression) that underlines it.

Translators can only repeatedly seek the dynamic equivalent. Even the 'formal equivalent' must take into account the meaning of languages, their syntax and idioms. And how the rendering is understood compared with how a reader of the original text would understand what he read.

God didn't preserve the original autographs and this is evident in that we don't have them. No one can produce those 'very words' in any MSS. And nothing in this Psalm necessitates that a future English translation is referred to either and others are not! And we DON'T even have the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV. You wrote,

>>V. 2 records the words "speak" twice. V 2 also includes the phrase, "flattering lips" and again in Verse 3.  Verse 3  uses the words, "tonque, and 'speaketh.'  Verse 4 uses again the words 'tongue and, 'lips.'  So in verse 6, it is referring to "The LORDS..Pure words."

You are correct regarding vs.2, 3 & 4. But even if vs.6 applies as you say, you still have the problem I mentioned above. One radical claimed, "God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more then one language." So how could God provide His words as you say?  Who is right; you or this radical?

Vs.6 is saying, God's promises of help to the righteous are reliable, in contrast to the deceitful words of the wicked.  God's promises have been put to the test and remained faithful and pure. You wrote,

>>My question is: How can you trust the NIV when it contradicts to other (not inclusively KJV) versions ?<<

No translation is perfect or without mistakes. And I don't trust translators explicitly as you. They are humans using the languages of men. They are trained for the task and must study and use the best resources available while learning difficult languages. So no translation can be infallibly correct unless the Holy Spirit guide with the same degree of inspiration as the original Bible writers. Languages are not perfect.

But how can I trust God's Word when NIV KJV RV etc differ? Because no Bible doctrine is in question by differences in translations or difficult verses. You insist I can't be sure about any doctrine [salvation etc] unless the KJV is consulted. I believe however, no doctrine is lost or in doubt by using other text-types. No doctrine hinges on disputed readings, but the vast majority of the actual words in the NT are beyond doubt. And there's nothing in Scripture indicating a rejection of the Byzantine text results in ignorance of God's will. The research over the last 150 years has not presented us a radically different Bible. Not one article of the Christian creed has been overthrown by newly accepted readings.

There are contradictions between versions and even in the KJV itself. In Heb.4:10 the KJV says "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day". What? Jesus hasn't given rest? Then what does this mean? Heb.4:10 speaks of Joshua not Jesus [see a modern translation]. But you are committed to an error or contradiction in the KJV and must defend it regardless of the truth.

The NIV translation has been by a more thorough process of review and revision than the KJV. The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and it's fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. The translators were a group of over a hundred evangelical scholars [Baptist Pres. Breth. etc] made up from official church representatives. It went through three revisions and thousands of hours of research by Christians who were totally committed to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form.

The NIV has a far better research behind it than the KJV.  The KJV translators wrongly believed the NT was originally written in the Attic Greek of the Classics. The relevant MSS had not yet been discovered. We now know it was '"Koine" or 'Common Greek' of everyday life. This discovery makes a huge difference when translating. You wrote,

>>How can you derive Israel from this chapter?<<

A number of reasons. Vs.7. "O LORD, you will keep US safe and protect US from such people forever."  That doesn't refer to MSS or translations, but people. Vs.1 "LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." The words "the godly" and "the faithful" don't refer to MSS or translations. Vs.5 "I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him" Some versions read, "I will give him [or them] an open salvation." So when vs.6 reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words" it means none of his promises shall fall to the ground; the salvation which he has promised shall be communicated. This salvation or promises, sayings relate to Israel. The Psalm is a promised salvation, not a promised KJV centuries later. There are other reasons I can see from the margin notes in my KJV. You wrote,

>>How can you derive that His words are literally tried as fire when God purposely said, "AS silver tried."<<

Your literal 'the very words preserved' interpretation implies that. So "AS sliver is tried" do you put MSS in fire to test them? Job didn't go into literal fire, nor was Job's 'very words' written down to put in fire. You wrote,

>>Was Job tried in a literal fire when he said, "(Job 23:10 KJV)  But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold." That reference refers to testing.  The word of God is PURE words. The word "Seven" is the number that refers to God--God's perfection.<<

The reference in Job proves my point. The fact that Ps.12 is not referring to 'words' on MSS is evident in that we don't have the originals. They are, after all the 'very words'.  You wrote,

>>Yes it is a promise of God preserving His Word.  Again,  how can you think that the NIV reliable when so much is missing or has been changed.  It's not it.  If we don't have the very words of God today, then hang up your pulpit, has a former pastor once said, "And get a real job."<<

Yes now you sound like a real radical. Saying, if the KJV is NOT the "very words of God", then give up the faith, we can't sure about salvation, we don't know any doctrine, we can't be sure about anything, we should give up Christianity. Yes that's just the way the radicals talk bro. 

We can't be sure of salvation if we don't use the KJV. Because all other versions are  called 'Satanic and untrustworthy' by radicals. So the non-English convert must repent and believe the Gospel and use the "very words of God today". And learn to read and speak English. Salvation becomes a mixture of works and grace. This challenge I made has NOT been answered, yet. You better read that again, it's a serious flaw in your doctrine.

It's true, modern translations omit words or phrases the KJV retains but its also true the KJV omits words or phrases others retain. But no Bible doctrine is in question by differences in translations or difficult verses. You wrote,

>>Again, as the 'translators' for the NIV have done, so you do. "Ye have perverted the words of hte living God." Jeremiah 23:36<<

It's the KJV radicals who "distort the words of the living God". When analysing their literature it becomes obvious many words - Scripture, Gospel error, faith, sin, corruption, inerrancy, God's Word, and Bible all have new meanings. Many Bible words and verses are reinterpreted with meanings the original writers never intended. You wrote,

>>Following is a list of some changesNIV changed lucifier to Jesus Christ. KJV reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFIER, son of the morning!..." The NIV for Is. 14:12 reads "How you have fallen from Heaven, O MORNING STAR, so of the dawn."  The morning star is according to Rev. 22:16 refering to our Lord Jesus Christ."<<

In Isa.14 the expression "son of the morning" gives a key to the Hebrew word.  "Heilel' signifies the morning star or day star. This is a phrase that equates the king of Babylon with a deity worshipped by the Canaanites and no doubt well know by name to the people of Judah. Satan too can be light-bringer [2 Cor.11:14-15].  "Heilel", which the KJV translates Lucifer, comes from 'yalal', meaning, 'yell, howl, or shriek, and could even be translated, "Howl, son of the morning." The Syriac has that and many scholars of the Hebrew suggest that, see Parkhurst.

But you don't take any notice of what the Hebrew or Greek says. If the Greek or Hebrew word-meanings differ from the English word-meanings in the KJV, then for you the Hebrew and Greek are wrong.  Radicals claim the Greek has "no authority" in interpreting Scripture, the "final authority" is the KJV.

Promise me one thing.  Buy yourself a copy of Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words and READ IT.  This is very important. Promise me that you will do this. You can get a copy from most decent Christian bookshops that have a wide range of reference materials.

 Another good Expository dictionary is L.O Richard's dictionary.  Don't worry if you can't read Greek or Hebrew. These books explain with English the word meanings.  Write back when you have done this and let me know what you think. As you search Vine's Dictionary you will change your mind about the idea that the KJV is all the radicals claim. You wrote,

>>KJV reads what is commonly known as the 'Lord's prayer' (should be model prayer.) It says in Luke 11:2-4 "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name...." The NIV takes our WHICH ART IN HEAVEN thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN..."<<

Perhaps you have the wrong version or reference? I couldn't find that in the NIV. The literature from KJ radicals claims the KJV is right and never wrong. With long lists where other versions differ from the KJV and they are castigated for differing with the KJV. The KJV is never wrong on any verse and never regarded as unclear. This methodology proves nothing but it assumes what is yet to be proved. Doctrine is not determined by one-verse or comparing translations.  The orthographical errors alone in the 1611 verify a huge numbers of mistakes. You wrote,

>>The NIV removes 63,625 words.  Obviously, there is not enough time or space in this email to list all of them. I'll be glad to send you a brochure written by Dial-THE TRUTH ministries. Just give me your address. After all, I'm at a disadvantage.  You know who I am, but I don't know who you are.  I partially know what you claim to be. (Dr.?)<<

The arguments put forward for the KJV inspiration are so excessive and never ending that one wonders why the radicals must go on and on over something that should be so obvious. They build a conspiracy theory and then exaggerate their argument beyond the truth.  I have worked through lists with them [snail mail] and in the end I conclude they are just like cults - minds are made up, they are not interested in truth. When a verse is explained they are strangely silent yet keep the verse on their list because the KJV can't be wrong on ANY verse. (For that would mean the whole argument falls to pieces). You wrote,

>>Do you stand in doubt of the very words of God?  The question is, if you doubt the genuiness of God's word and believe some of it may be man's, let me ask you then, which?  You have become a judge yourself of the words of God.  How then can you judge I and these men who sincerely believe that the Alexandrian text, Westcott and Horte, and the NIV are a bunch of trash.<<

I don't stand in doubt. I believe the genuiness of God's Word. And which? There's only one Bible but many versions. "V" means version. As I said to others. The Church from the beginning has taken care to detect forgeries, guard and preserve the canon. The church carefully decided on the Canon [with God's help]. Evangelical Christianity rejoices that God has marvellously preserved the Bible. The words of the prophets and apostles have been recorded and preserved for generations. No other ancient book is attended by such a vast number of manuscripts. There are thousands and they prove God has preserved Scripture. The Holy Spirit has excised control to produce verbal inspiration, accuracy in every statement and divine wisdom in the words penned. God's Word is authoritative because it is the voice of God, it is intelligible because it is in the language of men. Inspiration then, is dynamical and not mechanical.

The writer's penned the words that God gave. And God has "preserved" and this is true of all MSS and text-types regardless. Consider the frail state of the original MSS on parchment and in the form of scrolls. No scroll was large enough to contain more than one book and the OT was not bound together. In the papyrus scroll era the NT also could never circulate as a whole. Yet God wonderfully preserved His Word. Another proof of God's marvellous preservation is the failure of the NT Apocrypha. This was the result of a flood of spurious writings, yet the whole Christian Church rejected those books. The KJV has readings found in no Greek MS at all, but are traced to the Vulgate. The text-type on which the KJV is based has no two MSS that agree perfectly, so God has used Textual Criticism to guard His Word. You wrote,

>>Look at the historic denials of y Westcott and Horte who even deny the diety of Jesus Christ.  Yet you trust these 'gentlemens' material? It seems you have more faith in these men, than in God's Promise of Psalms 12:6,7 of preserving his words.<<

No. The radicals also claim. "Christ's Deity is attacked in hundreds of places in the NIV". Yet the highest number of references to Christ's deity belong to the NIV. There are references to deity in the NIV where the KJV has no mention - Jn.1:8 Titus 2:13  2 Pe.1:1 & margin 2 Thes.1:12] The NIV is a translation done by evangelicals based on an eclectic text. Of course the doctrine of Jesus deity does not depend exclusively on the passages that explicitly call Him "God"; but the point I am making is that the doctrine of Christ's deity is affirmed by all modern translations, with the understandable exception of the NWT. You wrote,

>>I already have mentioned one author.  What is wrong with reading up on it? Let me suggest another book titled, "Final Authority," By Grady.<<

Please feel free to quote them to me. Can I suggest a few books that you can read? These help you 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). The King James Version Debate, D.A.Carson (Baker Book House). You wrote,

>>You see sir.  I have been where you're at.  I grew up with all the other versions.  I realized that if these versions disagree then which one can we trust.  My investigation led to the KJV.  Now go ahead and ridicule my stand, but it sure feels a lot better knowing I have a Bible in which I can trust EVERY word.<<

I don't 'ridicule' you, that's something the KJ mob do. The changes in today's KJV, from the 1611 have been estimated to be 75,000. Whether 45 or 75 thousand, a "correction" is a "change". It only takes one error to fail the perfect test. Why argue all other versions have corrections and changes and avoid using these words concerning the KJV?. Today's KJV is not  the "word-for-word...unaltered 1611". What of the many revisions and new editions of the KJV down through the years and all the changes? How do you have "EVERY word" when thousands of words have been changed and corrected?. You wrote,

>>(Prov 30:5 KJV)  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (Mat 4:4 KJV)  But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall notlive by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Mat 5:17 KJV)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  (Mat 5:18 KJV)  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.<<

Sorry these verses don't refer to the KJV. Like I said, if you stop thinking the KJV refers to the KJV in the KJV, you would do yourself a service. NOTHING in these verses refers to the KJV and not others. Why twist verses to say something they don't. When Jesus said "every Word which proceeded out of the mouth of God" He was not referring to the KJV or giving "a commandment" regarding any version. You wrote,

 >>1. YOU DIDN"T ANSWER MY QUESTION? How many have you led to Christ in the past month?  Perhaps you don't because you can't trust what you have.  It really bothers me that you believe so strongly in what you have but are silent (witness) on what you know! Shame on you.  What's wrong with keeping people out of hell?  Just like my Mom used to say, "Point one finger at somebody, three more point back to you!"<<

 If you answer my questions I'll answer yours. Have you given any thought to that? What bothers me is that the radicals turn folk away from Christ. And those who can't read English what hope do they have? They turn people away by their rudeness. What 'really bothers me' is they would rather people go to hell than read a modern version and be saved. If they had their way, they would rob millions from the word of life. If you want that 'shame on you', but I'm pointing the finger at the error.

Those who have "only true Bible" should be outstanding examples of all that Christians SHOULD BE. According to the Apostle John, lack of LOVE was the greatest proof Christians don't walk in truth (1 Jn.4:12). Jesus said, all men will know you are My disciples by your love one for another (Jn.13:35).

Some of the literature the radicals publish might be called "hate literature". Those who use other versions or who question the AV are called - "lairs, fools, dung, stupid-jerks, dogs, blasphemers, brain-washed, up-starts, hypocrites, deceitful" etc. Some comments are slanderous. Then there's the campaigns of hate-mail and abusive phone-calls to those who hold contrary views. This antagonism is damaging to the radicals claims. You wrote,

>>2.  I never said that only the english KJV is able to save a soul.  Where do you get off of attacking me on that issue? Are you just blowing wind? Stick with the subject.<<

THIS IS WHY I WROTE THE FIRST EMAIL. And it's the parts you never answered!!! This is THE great contradiction with radicals and it alters the nature of the gospel message.  Is leading people to Christ that same as leading them to the KJV? According to the radicals, 'Yes'. The ideas the radicals have about salvation are very different to mine. You wrote,

>>3. Have you ever heard that some Gospel tracts have been written in a foreign language?  I've used them! The question is when have you used them? Get off of your bandwagon and keep somebody out of Hell!<<

Study those tracts and read about translation work if you can. No translations come from the old TR anymore [but the NKJV].  Foreign language translations are not justified to the text of the 1611, but the Greek, Hebrew or Critical Text. Even if they were, words translated between languages don't always have equivalence respectively. Translating is not merely some kind of mechanical process. Sentences and words must be very carefully selected to make proper sense. In all translations, the translator(s) must on occasions make decisions as to the meaning of a passage. Even if translators correctly understand the meaning of a passage, they may be forced to decide which of the several options in the receptor language to use. This illustrates a problem; they are always looking for words to express the meaning in the recipient language. They must choose only one word and can't always please critics regardless of what they do.

Who decides if those tracts have any errors? [The KJ mob?] And why then, is it wrong to translate the Scripture into Modern English? You wrote,

>>SO ARE YOU CATHOLIC?<<

No. You wrote,

>>Something must have hit home. You're squirming faster than a frog whose been stepped on. Perhaps it's conviction. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is trying to say, "Hey listen, I'm trying to talk to you." Somebody has hit the proverbial nail on the head.<<

Oh yes "squirming" very fast waiting for your reply. You people don't bring 'conviction' but offence. But do you take any notice of what the Holy Spirit says? In order to believe what you do, you ignored Him long ago. You don't allow the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. For you the English WORDS in the KJV are more important than the Spirit of TRUTH who takes Scripture and reveals it. The Holy Spirit illuminates as we read, He bears witness with our spirit to the truth of what we read. Without His work Scripture is dead letter (1 Cor.2:14 2 Cor.3:6 Eph.6:17). You overlook the fact that God's Word finds us, its not we who find God's Word [hidden away in the 16 century locked up in time and language].

With love and a pinch of salt

Mark
_______________________________

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the mail. Your replies are interesting. I try to answer every email. You wrote,

>>Truth has nothing to fear, except that someone careless with the truth may get your email".<<

That's correct. But then I suppose their “carelessness” is not my fault. If the website operators stood up boldly I would not have troubled you. You wrote,

>>You mention "concerns" but you speak of dogma.The difference is that concerns may have to do with gaining help for yourself or others, while dogma is what you are accusing the KJV bunch of.  The rest of your letter is about dogma, not concerns.<<

You doubt the genuineness of my concerns. The dictionary meaning of 'concerns' is "To relate to - regard or interest: he felt a strong concern for her. - Important relation: his news has great concern for us - to involve: he concerns himself with other peoples affairs - something that affects a person".  So my concerns stated my views, which you regard as 'dogma'. That's alright, your opinion. I decided to email my concerns to those listed on their website to allow the 'teachers of the truth' a response.  I'm thankful for freedom of expression and don't object to your right of reply. You wrote,

>>To lump everyone into the "radical" catagory, or any other catagory, because of the Bible they use or promote is the highest form of Bigotry. Since so far in your letter you seem to be Christian, I am certainly hoping that Bigot does not apply to you.<<

I didn't do that, or lump everyone into the radical category. But you certainly have the rudeness of the radicals. I wrote about them ie.,  "The claims of the KJ radicals are based on a particular interpretation of Scripture. After examining them it's obvious they are not true".  However, the KJB website operators have categorized you and all on their site as holding the same view. Do I add the word 'bigot' to my list of names? You wrote,

>>One of the prime distinctives of cults is to presume the "intentions" of God.<<

Well I don't know. I suppose everybody at times might wonder about the future or presume to know what God intents to do. But you maybe right. You wrote,

>>Shame on a Radical that would seek to interpret the scriptures and then even go so far as to slant them his or her way.<<

Yet they do. They interpret Bible words with meanings the original writers never intended.  They wrongly imagine when the KJV says "thy word" it refers to the KJV and nothing else. You wrote,

>>But the same shame is smeared on the Radical name-caller<<

It's a name they call themselves. The name came from one who named themselves a KJV radical - Tom  - Website: http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/tlamb  And I found it in their writings here in New Zealand and some who have replied by email are happy to go by that name. I will use the name “radical” referring to these people. I wish that I could call them something nice, but their behaviour is far from just another doctrinal position within mainstream Christianity. So I'm not calling names for names sake. Besides it accurately describes the people who make radical claims.  You wrote,

>>who presumes to know the intentions of God so well as to say that "God NEVER intended" a meaning.<<

Although I didn't say "God", but "the original writers NEVER intended" I suppose they spoke for God.  You wrote,

 >>The Bible is not for private interpretations, but is to be read and preached as it reads, not the interpretation or reinterpretation of words, passages, etc. I am sure you knew this already. I am just confirming it to you. The KJV is not for the whole world to read, but for those of the world that prefer to use English as the language they read and understand. Shame on a KJV promoter that insists that all the world read an English Bible.<<

Yes true.  You wrote,

>> It is hard for me to believe that there are serious saints that say this, I have never come across one. But of course I do not read just anything on the Internet, nor buy just any book, nor converse with just any person that has so little to do as to write to people they do not know, nor apparently like.<<

I've studied 'the KJ only doctrine'. Apparently their desire to promote the KJ above others has resulted in a failure to formulate their doctrine properly. They write half-truths and selective quotes. We both have the greatest respect for the KJV and for those who love it. But the radicals go too far in their claims and paint the wrong picture. You wrote,

>>Interpretation is not the same as translation.  Translation does not require interpretation.  Interpretation requires opinion and opinion has no place in translation.<<

Good point. You are right, "Interpretation is not the same as translation". But all translations do require interpretation. Yet KJ radicals only trust the opinions and interpretations of the KJV translators. They argue these scholars had infallibly and equal inspiration to the original Bible writers. They say that the Bible wasn't complete or reliable until 1611. But the facts are that neither the KJV translators, copyists or printers were infallible.

All translators admit that many interpretative decisions must be made in any translation of the Bible. They added punctuation where he original MSS had none. This can catch the meaning or lose it. And they use capitals and small letters whereas the originals had only capitals. Translators have capitalized the pronouns according to whether or not the persons addressing Jesus acknowledged Him as God. This of course is highly interpretative. Also, every true translation [KJV also] must take into consideration the entire context of a word, phrase, sentence, or verse. Interpretation must be present in making a translation - especially in those places where a Greek word, apart from the context, may be correctly translated by several different English words.

The KJV translators, although remarkable scholars, wrongly believed the NT was originally written in the Attic Greek of the Classics. The relevant MSS had not yet been discovered. We now know it was '"Koine" or 'Common Greek' of everyday life. This priceless discovery makes a huge difference when translating.  It also teaches us from the very beginning God intended His Word to be clearly understood by the common man.  The difference between Attic and Koine is significant for the interpretation of the NT.  Scholars give numerous examples of how inaccurate the Attic Greek is when reading the NT compared to the Koine Greek. Most speakers of the Koine were non-Greeks, for many of them Greek was a second language. So Koine did not have the precision and elegance of the classical Attic tongue.

The claims of the radical become so exaggerated they cannot admit to one incorrect verse or word in the KJV. For that would mean they have lost their whole argument. They believe the KJV could not have ONE mistake for that would suggest 'God has a mistake'. If anyone question the KJV they question God, for the KJV is regarded perfect, even as God. In fact, the impression they give us is that the final authority is the KJV not God (This kind of logic is not new. The cults have a similar problem. Their leaders or belief system is also revered as infallible. Dedicated cultists never question what they are told or believe.  However, you wrote,

>>I know of no serious saint that says the KJV is infallible. Infallible carries the connotation that it must speak about subjects or topics.  Of course the Bible does not speak, but people do. The Bible states the inspiration of God.  There is no new revelations coming from it to be fallible or infallible with what was already said. There are probably a few people that say this sort of thing, but intelligent folks like you and I don't have any truck with them, neither do we argue with them.<<

Interesting. Although there are many on the website [where you are listed] who say it is 'infallible'. You wrote,

>>The KJV is not ambiguous.  But the people who twist it are.The KJV is poetic in a multitude of ways.  Poetry is easily misunderstood by the careless, infrequent reader.  Or the person who is looking for mistakes. Or the person who is attempting to berate what they do not understand. These people are easily spotted as a false prophet or teacher and the serious saint handles that person like scripture indicates in many different places.<<

You say the KJV is not "ambiguous". I agree  it's not ambiguous for those who pour over it and study. But it is hard to read with hundreds of archaic words and phrases not easily explained [In my opinion and many English speakers]. Words have changed etc. I think you know that. Those in the cults quote the KJV and hide behind "ambiguity" and they know how to use ambiguity. Often they quote the KJV to me supporting their doctrines and ask me not to use modern versions. Repeatedly one can discover their falsehood by simply opening a modem version and reading that. You wrote,

>>IF YOU DO NOT READ ANY OTHER PART OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, PLEASE READ THIS!!!!<<

I will, I will. You wrote,

>>Any writing with any depth to it at all, is a little difficult to read in one sitting.  But I have never had the kind of problems you indicate you have, after going over the passage seriously and being guided by the Holy Spirit which you stated was necessary.  The KJB has a lot of words we do not use today, but in every case that I took the time to seriously work on the passage, I have been able to see the wisdom of the word used.  One the comes to mind is the usage of the word Charity in 1 Cor13.

You and I both know that the word Love is used several different ways in the Scriptures.  For the most part, Love is simply putting the other person before yourself.  This statement is made, not by interpretation, but by usage.  Jesus said "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind ... and love thy neighbor as thyself".  This is putting God above everything with all you have and even others before yourself.  So when you look at 1 Cor 13 you see mentioned things like ..."And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor..." you readily see that this is loving the poor and if you go on to read the rest of the verse you see ... "and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing".  If Charity meant "love" then giving to the poor is not love, because giving to the poor requires charity in order to be profitable.  Careful reading of the passage of 1 Cor 13 indicates that Charity is not just putting others before self, but doing it with the right reason.  So there is a Love and there is Charity.  It is a good thing the writters of the KJB used a different word for love in this passage, not for the sake of being archaic, but for clarity.  If Charity was the word for love for that particular day, then why does it use love in other places?  No other translation is as definitive and exacting and revealing as the KJB.<<

Thanks for that, appreciated. I agree with your reflections on 'charity' the word is better-translated charity than love. There are many places I think the KJV cannot be improved on.

Unfortunately people today think of the word charity in relation to 'Charities.' Those who knock on doors asking for money. A charitable person is one who gives money.  So I suppose some would argue that if a version uses the word 'love' in 1 Cor.13 it doesn't mean we are thrown into confusion about love or charity. Love is a big study in the Bible and they would say one passage doesn't say it all. You wrote,

>>Please do not show the above to anyone who may be less of a Bible student than yourself, because they would tend to pick it apart with unfounded exaggerations and insinuations.<<

Yes sure, but I have no control over who reads it. You concluded,

>>Incidentally, I have a little pamphlet on the reasons why the KJB uses thee, thou, ye, etc., that gives excellent reasons for their use.  Also, I have never found a person that did not know what those words meant. Gsa  <<

Your most welcome to email that to me if you want [but not as an attachment because of email virus]. Snail mail costs too much I live outside the States. Thanks for again, kind of you to write. Good points.

Regards.
Mark
________________________________

Thanks for the mail Bro Jim.

Interesting comments you make. You ask a number of questions, hope you don't mind me grouping your questions together because they are asking the same thing. You wrote,

>>THE WHOLE ISSUE THAT SEEMS TO BE MISSED IS; "WHERE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY" [10] What is your authority?<<

The KJ radicals maintain if one doesn't use the KJV then they don't know what is right or wrong and have no final authority for what God says or Christian living. The problem with their argument is that the issue of the authority of God's Word is turned to from God's Word to 'which version has the final authority? That's a different matter all together. Most evangelical Christians hold to the inspiration, authority and infallibility of God's Word, but KJ radicals ask us to apply these truths only to one translation.  And that is an entirely different subject, which requires us to put aside common sense and the teaching of God's Word. So I stress the authority of Scripture as for measuring theological claims. But KJ advocates turn this debate from the authority of Scripture, inerrancy and inspiration to the question which version is Scripture?

They say since Bible versions differ on their readings in some verses, which one is correct? Otherwise we don't have any authority. I respond that indeed some versions differ, but I do not determine doctrine and which translation is correct by comparing translations [as the KJ radicals do]. And furthermore, no Bible doctrine is determined by the rendering in one verse or by one translation. They disagree and argue the KJV alone determines doctrine. If I ask what happens when the KJV is wrong or ambiguous in a verse? They reply that it can never be wrong anywhere. Here's three examples which show authority doesn't rest on a human translation -

[1] Are there contradictions in the KJV? In Heb.4:10 the KJV says "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day". What? Jesus hasn't given rest? The KJV is misleading, so modern versions correct it, eg. For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. [NIV] Clearly the NIV avoids any misunderstanding.  Heb.4:10 speaks of Joshua not Jesus. But the KJ radicals are committed to an error or contradiction in the KJV and must defend it regardless of the truth.

[2] Another example in the KJV is the word "Easter" in Act 12:4. They claim the text was correctly altered  to include the word. Yet it wasn't used or known by Luke, but it is foreign to the NT MSS. The KJ translators introduced "Esotre" from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books. Are they right and Luke was wrong? Who has the final authority God or the KJV translators?

Scripture is authoritative not because of style, phrases or even the words, but because of what the words say. So no one particular translation can be regarded as the final authority.  The impression I get from KJ radicals is that the 'final authority' is the KJV not God (This kind of logic is not new. The cults have a similar problem. Their leaders or belief system is also revered as infallible. Dedicated cultists never question what they are told or believe).  So my answer as to the "final authority" is "Christ", He is my final authority.  All versions are the translations of men, in human languages which are not perfect. Christ Himself is the revelation of God, my Bible tells me He should have the pre-eminence in "all things" [Col.1:18]. How you [or anyone] could place Luther's, the NIV, KJV or any version over and above Christ is beyond me.  You wrote,

>>[1] If the KJV is not inerrant, Which is?  Not a human either<<

You know my answer to that question and proven in your question 4. Which reads -

>>[4] Why hold up a Bible and call it Inerrant, When you say that no Translation is inerrant ?? That is Lying and Hypocrisy<<

See, you answered my question. However allow me to expand. The KJ advocates constantly fail to realise that inerrancy does not explain how to interpret a word or verse. How we interpret words and verses is the realm of hermeneutics. Yet they use the word "inerrancy" to make major issues out of minor matters and create disunity among Christians who otherwise have much in common. Some KJ radicals don't even believe the originals were "inerrant" for them that term only applies to the KJV. They believe the originals were likely "so messed-up in places" they had to be rewritten, so the KJV "surpasses" the originals. Is that your view as well?

The meaning of the word "error" changes when it suits KJ radicals and their understanding of  "inerrancy" is unscriptural.  They are totally unaware that the word "inerrant" is not a biblical concept. In the Bible, erring is a spiritual or moral matter not intellectual. Inerrancy isn't explicitly taught in the Bible. The writers of Scripture believed Scripture completely true, but that doesn't mean inerrancy. The Bible's implication that it's free from error doesn't describe what the errorlessness entails. They fail to appreciate the culture and the means of communication that had developed at the time the Bible was written.  If we consider the purposes for which the Bible was given, then it is fully truthful in all that it affirms. While it does not err, the important thing about the Bible is that it teaches truth. The radicals wrongly apply inerrancy in the sense of some kind of scientific exactness, in a strict sense. So that even punctuation marks, capital letters and numbering of verses are all regarded as inspired and inerrant. Yet these were absent in the originals and added by translators (the numbering of verses before 1611).

 Traditionally the Church has believed the doctrine of inerrancy applies in the strict sense only to the originals, and in a derivative sense to copies and translations, only to the extent that they reflect the original. Perhaps if you could tell me which KJV you consider 'inerrant', the 1611 KJV or today's KJV? And are you asking me to find a Bible where the translators, copyists and printers were infallible? The facts are that even with the KJV, the translators, copyists or printers were not infallible as proven by the orthographical errors in the 1611 KJV. They alone verify a huge numbers of alterations to the text. So which KJV the 1611 or today's?  You ask,

>>[2] If the Heb. & Greek is inerrant, which of those is?<<

The KJV is comes from the Byzantine tradition of MSS. No two MSS in the Byzantine tradition agree in every point. So it's pointless to argue Greek or Hebrew MSS are inerrant. I know of no one who believes any one MSS [or text-type] is inerrant. Do you? You wrote,

>>[3] If you are certain the KJV has errors, why not correct them and give us a perfect Bible ????<<

Translators must continue to up-date versions to keep pace with changes in language and new discoveries. No Bible can be perfect in every sense of the word because [as I said] human languages are not perfect and neither are translators. But yes indeed, many of the errors in the KJV have been corrected in modern versions. But true, some have introduced errors. You wrote,

>>[5] Is the Word of God within the covers of one book ? [6] If the Word of God is within one book; which is it ?<<

These two questions are the same. You must define what you mean by the word of God. Words have a different definition for you than for me. When you say "inerrant, inspired, word of God" etc you mean something different and only refer to the KJV. Here's a list of words that have a different meaning for both of us -

'Sinner' - someone who uses any other version and not the KJV
'Error' - only found in other versions, never in the KJV
'Inerrant' - only refers to the KJV
'The Word of God'  -  the KJV
'Words of God' - words in the KJV
'Thy Word' - the KJV
'Infallible' - only refers to the KJV
'Inspired' - only the KJV, not even the originals
'Bible corrector' - any bible translator but not the KJ translators
'Faith'  - that the KJV is God's Word
'Scripture' - the KJV
'Gospel'  - believe, repent, baptised, learn English use KJV
'Corruption' - only in other text-types never the one of the KJV
'Bible' - only one true KJV.

The Bible is only "one book" but it's translated into many versions [over 1700]. Whether the NIV or the KJV the "v" means version. There's only one Bible but many versions. You wrote,

>>[7] If the "originals" were inerrant, Why did God give them,Then allow them to be lost ??<<

How do you know the originals weren't inerrant?  If translators work from the principle the originals were inerrant, they will have a high goal to work toward. If they work from the principle they weren't then the task is hopeless and nothing we believe can be regarded as certain. Why did God allow them to be lost? Because two reasons;
[1] God never intended His Word to be locked up in one language [ie old English]. The Gospel message is for all the nations. And their languages are to be employed to His praise.
[2] It would create disunity and division in the churches. If the Lutherans were to make the silly claim Luther's German translation of 1522 is God's Word and all others are "Satanic". Then obviously every Christian must learn to read German in order to read the words of the only correct Bible. And there become two classes of people in the Church - learned intellectuals who can read and speak German and those who cannot but use "Satanic counterfeits".  A recipe for division among God's people.

So we don't have the original autographs and the Bible [whatever version] is only a copy from a copy from a copy etc. The manuscripts are the witnesses to the text. All translators and Textual Critics study them to establish a reading. But they are not perfect but make mistakes as you well know. So how you get a perfect translation [KJV] from imperfect manuscripts is something radicals have yet to prove. You wrote

>>[8] If only a portion of the KJV is God's word, Which portion ??<<

This is a question you must answer. The 1611 KJ translators added words to make the Greek conform to English, so there is many words in the KJV certainly not in the originals. And Apocrypha was also included in the 1611 KJV [and other KJV's since]. Was that portion of the 1611 KJV not God's word?  Also tell me how much of "God's word" is in other versions? This is why you must define what you mean by the "Word of God". Because if you believe the unsaved can be converted through other versions then how much of "God's Word" is in other versions?

Conservative Christians are at the forefront of a science we call 'Textual Criticism'. It also involves finding errors, which need to be deleted and corrected wherever possible, additions traced and alterations replaced. And attempting to reconstruct the original readings and explaining the reasons for the alterations. I should think we should be grateful to those who so painstakingly strive to know and exact words of Scripture as originally written. I would rather know what the original wrote.  You ask,

>>[9] When you read "Preach, Study, Hide, & Walk" in the Word.......Which do you do it from if you do not have it ? God does not play tricks on folk<<

I have it so that's not a problem. And correct "God does not play tricks on folk". What sort of nasty trick it would be for millions [who can't speak or understand old English] to wrongfully believe God is speaking to them through the Bible in their language that claims to be "God's Word" yet it isn't? You wrote,

>>[11] How do you know you are saved, if you cannot prove it from an "Inerrant" Authority ??<<

You link salvation to knowing a particular human language and a translation. You cast a doubt on my salvation if I don't use the KJV [sounds like the 'Hath God said' club]. Anyone who thinks about your question will realise the serious implications. Salvation is intrinsically linked to a language and a Bible version. Any student of Scripture will realise the NT does not teach that salvation rests on languages or translations, but on Christ's atoning work and His death and resurrection (Jn.3:16-17 Rom.10:9). Even the KJV will not support such a notion. There will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV or even spoke English.

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands"  Rev.7:9 ( See also Rev.5.9).

This heavenly vision describes millions of worshippers from all nations and languages who simply accepted the Gospel message. Indeed, all the nations shall worship before Him (Ps.22:27,28  72:11,17  96:1,3,10). When it comes to salvation, Paul never mentions dialects or languages. Read the great salvation chapters of Romans and Galatians three and four. People become Christian's when they receive Christ as their Saviour and the Holy Spirit, enters their heart (Gal.3.1-3 Rom.8:9). Neither the Apostles, nor the Early Church Fathers suggest converts must learn another language. 

In fact, right from the beginning of the Church, the Gospel was proclaimed in various languages and dialects. "Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue." You wrote,

>>[12] Have you ever considered that you are like God, You can just come up with any old reading you desire to suit your Doctrine ??<<

No, I allow the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture and never think I know it all. KJ radicals don't allow the Holy Spirit they hold the KJ translators as the final authority. And if the KJ says it, then that's final. But for me Scripture has a freshness and life that's new every morning. You miss out on what God hast to say to you, by ignoring the shades of meaning from the Greek and Hebrew  which the KJV translators knew about but only mentioned in the 1611 margin. You wrote,

>>[13] Where are the words right now??  in Ps.12  "The words of the Lord are pure word.....Thou shalt keep them.... Forever ??? "Where are those words ?<<

Ps.12 is certainly not God promising to preserve those original words, cause we don't have the words on the original manuscripts. The original autographs would be the ultimate proof the KJV is the recovered originals and those you don't have. I had interesting emails with one of your experts [Doc] about this question. It went like this  -

Doc, Where are the words of God?
Me,  God's Words are in the Bible.
Doc, But in which Bible, they are all different?
Me, Yes, God then obvious uses different words for different people. He speaks to them in their language using their words. We are the recipients of a Divine revelation not a Divine translation.
Doc, I don't mean that, where are the words, the ones He promised to preserve?
Me, Well, God never promised to preserve the original words and that is proven by the fact we don't have the original manuscripts. They after all, had all the original words on them. And God has not preserved them.
Doc, Then what did God promise to preserve?
Me, The translated message of those words. Words together form the message; words of themselves have little or no meaning. It's when they are put together they make meaning. Scripture is authoritative not because of style, phrases or even the words, but what the words say.
Doc, Answer the question. Where are the words of God?
Me, Are they in the KJV?
Doc, Yes
Me, Then they have changed from one language into another. And for millions of people who don't know English, they must learn English to read the 'words of God'. In order to read the very 'words of God' and be sure about salvation or doctrine they must learn English. If not they are at a disadvantage, for God has not spoken to them. You are adding works to the gospel, in fact it's not the gospel taught in the Bible. God never intended the gospel message to be locked up in one language because the gospel is for all tongues and languages of the nations 'Whosoever will'

 I must say "Doc" at this point strangely disappeared from the discussion; perhaps you would like to pick up where he finished?  :-)  You conclude -

>>Don't mean to sound like I am Interrogating you; Just trying to help "Jump start" your Logic.<<

I don't mind. When KJ people ask such questions they usually don't want the answers or accept the answers for two reasons. [1] Because the KJ argument works on the principle of assuming what is true but is yet to be proven. It begs the question over and over. Argues for the sake of arguing. Such questions are to confuse and baffle the unwarily. [2] Because, the KJ debate is to be accepted as infallible or it fails totally. If it is wrong on one point, or the KJV is shown in any way wrong or in error, then the whole argument falls apart. This is why I ask about the spelling mistakes in the KJV 1611 and silence is the reply. The word 'error' can never ever be used by KJ radicals regarding the KJV because one error in the KJV fails the perfect test. The KJ radical must eat his pride and admit the KJV is just another version. Most would rather give up the faith than that.

Thanks
Mark Purchase