Want Some Answers ???

Hi Tim

Thanks for the mail. You wrote,

>>I do not understand why you sent me the first e-mail<<

I accessed your email address off "The Bible Truth Homepage" website. http://members.esslink.com/~pseely/index.htm This site promotes the radical King James doctrine.  I emailed them but they don't answer.  Apparently their idea of "Truth" cannot be questioned. Yet surely, if their claims about the KJV are true, what has 'truth' to fear? So I decided to email my concerns to those listed on their website to allow the 'teachers of the truth' a response.  You wrote,

>>if you like the King  James Bible I do not tell any that they cannot get save by reading the many other types of bibles. God's message can be found by any one who is looking.<<

Glad to hear that. The second time you make the point. But you can see from my last email many KJ radicals on that website argue the contrary?  Some wrote, "We don't believe that - our church is different". Yet after reading their mail its obvious they are similar. And I can't escape the implications of their doctrine (including the racist and discriminatory over-tones).

The moment we insist one particular Bible language version is the only true, correct version, is the moment the Gospel is modified. And the logical and inevitable consequences of that is,
[a] If all other translations are corrupt and untrustworthy
[b] And only one particular language version is trustworthy.
[c] Trust in salvation/doctrine/practice is linked to that language version.

One person wrote, "how can we be sure that we have eternal life if theres mistakes in the Bible? Think about this carefully. It's a serious matter. For him, security regarding "eternal life" depends on the KJV. Learning old English becomes vital with repentance and faith for those who want security. This is contrary to the Gospel and a departure from Bible truth. It is this that makes the KJ belief system characteristic to a cult. So while radicals keep telling me they are different, the moment they open their mouth making big claims about the KJV [which are not true] is the moment they put their foot in it. You wrote,

>>The King James Bible is the standard we use it at church all our members use  it.If someone is using an other type the reading will not have the same message.<<

Interesting. Our church has a variety of nationalities and various translations and the wonderful Gospel message is still the same. If churches want to confine themselves to a particular version (NIV or KJV etc), I don't have a problem with that. But to insist the KJV ONLY is used for English speaking people, means that only some will have a version they understand. Because many don't have a firm grasp on the Kings English to use it. Have you noticed - many countries have their own form of English, language is a cultural expression. So the KJV can be a state of excellence for you but a linguistically obstacle course for others. An understandable English version is vital for them.  That's why Scripture MUST be translated into the modern languages of every nation and modern English.

The research over the last 150 years has not given us a radically different Bible. Not one article of the Christian creed has been overthrown by newly accepted readings.  You wrote,

>>You said it your self the others "leave out and add to" we want ever one on the same page.<<

Not quite true. What I said was - "all versions differ; your comment could apply to ANY version compared to another. Yes modern translations omit words or phrases the KJV retains but its also true the KJV omits words or phrases others retain. And no Bible doctrine is in question by differences in translations or difficult verses".

We have many KJ editions so everyone cannot be "on the same page". The KJV Criswell Study Bible has an introduction, outline, subheadings. Dake's KJV Annotated Reference Bible has lengthy margin notes give a veritable commentary on the text and subheadings. Nave's KJV Study Bible has alternate readings from the RV.  KJV Open Bible updates some of the versions more archaic words. Some KJ editions put portions of Scripture in small italic footnotes because the authenticity of the passages is in doubt [ie Ac.8.37 1.Pe.5.2]. Nave's Topical KJV has the occasional alternate reading from the RV. While the Zondervan KJV Topical Bible includes ASV, RSV and RV alternate readings.

Which KJV do I believe when one differs from another? I have a plain simple Cambridge KJV and regarding Acts 12.4 the margin tells me "Easter" should be "Passover". What happens when my KJV tells me that your understanding of your KJV is wrong? You wrote,

>>What do you mean by this?  - "What "better" than the White-mans Bible?" The word of God is for everybody,>>

Yes indeed, 'the word of God is for everybody'. That's why I reject their dogma. The expression 'White-mans Bible' is really descriptive of, and arises because of, claims like this -

"God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more than one language"
"English of the King James is God's chosen perfect language".
"I believe that at most one ENGLISH bible can be completely true and it [KJV] is God's chosen for English speakers".

These claims suggest that God is racist and discriminates on the ability of our English. They make Christianity a white-man's religion and the KJV a white-man's Bible. Note what this KJ radical claims, "anyone who uses any OTHER bible has a corrupt bible". That's nonsense of course. It tries to steal God's Word which belongs to 'everyone'. The Gospel is for all regardless of language. Mtt.24. And the Bible has always been a missionary book. God has given His Church the responsibility to communicate the gospel. If God only communicates in ambiguous KJ English then millions have no chance of understanding Him (1 Cor.14:6-9).

Contrary to the thinking of radicals God has preserved His Word by translation and copying. The fact Christians began to copy and translate Scripture almost immediately in the early Church has been vital in preserving the faith and guaranteeing accuracy in what is written. This may seem strange, but translating God's Word for others has benefited the Church all through history. Rather than been 'evil' it has spread the message.

Why is it wrong to translate God's Word into Modern English? Translating into English is far less difficult than into languages where rules of grammar are less developed and years of study are required to learn the receptor language first. How could a KJV remain a KJV when translated into foreign languages, yet when revised (ie. RV & NKJV) become corrupt?

Kind regards

Mark

'All the Word of God for all the People of God'