Answering the "Unanswerable"
to "Unanswerable Questions"
Posed by King James Bible Critic, Gary Hudson
Timothy S. Morton
The Nature of The Questions
Sooner or later any
person who is
interested in "Bible issues" or the "KJV debate" will be confronted
with so-called "probing questions" questioning the purity of
the word of God as found in the KJB. These questions [now usually found
on the Internet] are often presented in a pompous, arrogant
manner typical of the "Autograph Only/KJB critic"
crowd. Since these characters live in a cold,
sterile, "logical" world void of even the possibility of a pure Bible,
they pose these "intelligent and revealing" questions to
"unlearned and ignorant" Bible believers in an attempt to
humiliate us into subjection. Here is an example of their
smug, condescending rhetoric by Gary Hudson after he came up with
a list of 40 "unanswerable" questions,
While I could go on with many more questions regarding
the growing facets of "KJV-Onlyism," I have limited them
40. I am sure that Unlearned Men like... Peter Ruckman, Samuel
Gipp, Jack Hyles, Don Edwards, Herb Evans, Joe
Chambers, David Cloud, D.
A. Waite, Walter Beebe, Jack Chick, Texe
Marrs, E. L. Bynum, William Grady, Floyd
Jones, Dallas Bunch, Brad Weniger,
Herbert Noe, Larry Vance, Ken
Johnson, Robert Diehl, (+ women like Gail
Riplinger) and others_____ ("Birds of a feather flock
together...") of their
persuasion, would like to have the answers to these questions!
"grace and humility"
is "like a breath of fresh air" isn’t it? His attitude and
a perfect reflection of the Christian ideal.
Pardon my sarcasm, but boisterous, conceited, braggarts "rub
me the wrong way." Not only does Mr. Hudson deem his questions
as unanswerable, he implies his intellect and grasp of
the truth is superior to all the people he named plus all others who
may believe likewise!
If one reads much anti-KJB material he soon realizes personal humility
is not a trait these characters
strive to manifest. Nearly all of them think they are more intelligent,
more knowledgeable, more "reasoned," and more spiritual than
practically any Christian.
In spite of Mr. Hudson
cohorts allusions to knowledge and intelligence, Bible believers have
something they don’t have by their own admission:
the pure, infallible words of the Living God in the KJB.
We can produce the Bible we profess to believe. Hudson and his ilk
cannot. This distinction is what fuels their tirades against Bible
believers. Since we can produce the Bible we believe and they
cannot, this makes them jealous of our "appearance of orthodoxy."
We appear to some as more orthodox, legitimate Christians since
we can produce our final authority, and, of course, appearance is
everything if you are a vain, egotistical, self-serving Bible
corrector. They, instead of us, must appear as "orthodox believers"
at whatever the cost.
In the following we will answer
"unanswerable" questions. The reader can judge both the merit of the
questions and the answers. We believe the discerning believer will
find most of these "deep, probing questions" from "serious,
contemplative minds" are as shallow as a birdbath. Furthermore,
the reader will soon realize these questions are not true
questions at all. They are not given to gain knowledge or learn
something. They are actually "rhetorical questions"; questions
given for dramatic effect or in an attempt expose a supposed
weakness. No answer we give will satisfy the incorrigible heart of the
professional Bible critic, but our hope is some of our answers
will cause one who is honestly searching for the truth to
realize God’s word does exist in tangible form and is available
to all who will pick up a King James Bible.
Here is the link to the
questions as found on Hudson's site,
Here is a link to answers http://www.angelfire.com/nt/baptist/HE_64questions.html
Bible believer Herb
Evans gave to 64 questions by another KJB critic which appears to be
from this site, http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm.
Some of these questions are
exactly the same as Hudson's! A
little plagiarism going on here boys?
I did review brother Evans'
answers as I was
preparing mine, and as one would expect some of our answers will be
similiar. When you ask two people who believe the same about a
subject you can expect similiar answers. But many of the questions from
these two websites are identical without either one
giving the other credit. Typical KJB critic behavior. You
be the judge.
The Questions Considered
Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call
it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is
perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God"to only ONE "17th Century
English" translation? Where was "the word of God"prior to
1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word
of God" when
they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them
to North America?
There are 5 questions here; I will
answer each briefly. Some questions will be touched on again in later
a. Not always; let
me explain. If Hudson is referring to the complete and pure word of
God then no English translation other than the AV will qualify.
On the other hand one can have part of "the word of God" in a New
Testament, tract, or quotation. For example, a person cannot be
saved apart from the "word" but this doesn’t mean he
must have a complete Bible. Multitudes have been saved by tracts
that only contain a very small but vital section of the word—the
What does he mean by "flawless,"
anyway. We only contend the true and pure meaning of words or a
passage must be preserved, not that spelling, grammar, sentence
construction, font, etc. must be identical to the "original."
b. How do you know
the "originals" were "perfect"? How do you know their were no typo's in
the autographs? Remember, much of the Bible was
penned by scribes, not the authors. Answer these questions consistantly
and you'll better understand our position.
c. We don’t
"‘limit’ ‘the word of God’" to the KJB. As we
just said a tract can contain the "word of God" or even
another translation that agrees with the AV in a passage. We
do, however, limit the complete and pure word of God in English
to the KJB. It is our final
d. Before 1611 the
God" was a little here; a little more there; etc. It was spread all
around in various languages and various manuscripts.
One would have to live at the time to make a proper decision as to
which to use and believe.
Looking back any English translation before the AV would have been
acceptable [except the
Catholic Rheims version]. The English Bible was in a refining process
until 1611. I'm little concerned where the Bible was 500 years ago, I'm
concerned about where it is
e. As for the
Geneva Bible, it contained the "word of God" but it
was not the complete and pure word of God. A little more refining had
Were the KJV translators "LIARS" for saying that "the very
meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the
word of God"?
No, they were not liars for saying
that, but all men are liars anyway [Rom. 3:4]
including Hudson and myself. This is why all men’s words must be
"tried." The distinction mentioned in
answer #1(a) applies here as well. The KJV translators did not
say "the very meanest translation" was the complete and pure word of
but that it can convey elements of the word of God. If they thought
this "meanest" translation was the pure, complete word then why
would they spend over seven years giving the
English language a "better" version?
you believe that the Hebrewand Greek
used for the KJV are "the
word of God"?
However, even if we
knew precisely which Hebrew and Greek the KJ translators used, it would
be of little value to English speaking people. On the
other hand, I do not believe the texts the KJ translators did
NOT use are the word of God where they differ from the KJB.
you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct"
(5)Do you believe that the English
of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from
which it was translated?
No in both cases. I do believe,
however, that KJB English defines the proper definition
of the Hebrew or Greek.
ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired
Is the KJV "scripture"?
Is IT "given
by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
Yes on all counts, but let me
clarify. The KJB is the pure word of God, originally given by
inspiration, preserved in English. Therefore, the KJB itself
be "inspired" to use your term. It is given by inspiration in that it
is the preserved word. We don’t contend God’s word
had to be "reinspired" when it was translated into
English. God’s word is living and cannot die. It
would have to be dead to be "reinspired" or teach "double inspiration."
All the attributes of the word of God apply to
the KJB [inerrant, infallible, pure, scripture, etc.].
(8)WHEN was the KJV "given
by inspiration of God" —1611... or any of the KJV major/minor in
1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last
one in 1850?
When God gave His word originally.
See #6-7 above.
(9)In what language did Jesus Christ
[not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old
Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Another "loaded" rhetorical
question. First, Christ doesn’t mention any "language"
in Matt. 5:18, but we know the game Hudson is playing. He
make a big deal out of the words "jot" and "tittle," but look both
words up in an English dictionary. Jot means, "the least bit:
iota" [a Greek term]. Tittle means, "1: a point or small sign
used as a diacritical mark in writing or printing 2: A very small part."
So what Christ is saying is simply the smallest part of the law [like a
dot for an "i" or cross for a "t"] will not
go unfulfilled. What language did Christ say this in? Who knows. If you
know Mr. Hudson, let us know, but remember, you must prove it.
(10)Where does the Bible teach that
God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of
More rhetoric. Where did we or any
other Bible believer claim this could be found in the Bible? For that
matter where in the Bible does God say He will preserve the
Bible in only the original languages or that only the original
languages can convey His pure word? "Straw man" questions like
this reveal Hudson’s conceit.
(11)Did God lose the words of the
originals when the "autographs"were destroyed?
The God of the Bible hasn’t
lost anything. What kind of weakling God are you talking about, Hudson?
The only people who have lost these idolized
Bible correctors who come near to worshipping them. We Bible
believers believe God’s word will endure as He has preserved it
among His people in its purity forever.
(12)Did the KJV translators
mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was
out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.]
claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate
No, they were much more
honest than most "scholars" today. The question is misleading.
The title page at the beginning of the 1611 King James Bible says it
was "translated from the original tongues"
[languages] clarifying their "original Greek" statement on the NT title
page. Clearly they were referring to the original Greek language. They
didn’t claim to have the original autographs.
Was "the original Greek"lost after
Why no. Much to the dismay of
modern Bible correctors the original Greek autographs dissolved into
dust many centuries earlier. Who needs them anyway? God
doesn’t need them, we Bible believers don’t need them.
The only people who seek them [like the Jews sought the brazen serpent]
are "Autograph Only" Bible correctors like
Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603)
take place without "the word of God"?
As we said the word of God was
available before 1611, just not in pure, complete form in English. If
God can save a soul with a few spoken words or a few words written
on a tract, He can cause a reformation or revival from incomplete
Bibles as well. Everybody knows God’s word was available
in several different forms and languages before
(15)What copy or translations of "the
word of God,"used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and
inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies
None of them at least not in
English. They all needed refining to be made pure.
the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the
English-speaking people,"did the "English-speaking people" have "the
word of God"from 1525-1604?
The English-speaking people did
have "the word
of God" but they didn’t yet have "God’s infallible and
to the English speaking people."
Actually they had more of the word of God than people who use one of
the modern translations today. How pitiful. Modern scholarship has
defrauded believers out of the pure word of God and given them
translations inferior to those used by Christians over 400 years ago!
(17)Was Tyndale's ,
or Coverdale's , or Matthew's
, or the Great , or the Geneva
... English Bibles absolutely infallible?
No. We explained why in previous
answers. These were Bibles in transition.
If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely
inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born
the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
Though I normally don’t
questions [there is no way to prove a hypothetical answer], I will this
one. Of course a sinner could be saved. All
he needs is access to an uncorrupted portion of God’s word that
contains the gospel. This could be found in a tract, book, or even
spoken. As another has said, "Before the word of God
as a whole was completed, it was still the word of God in part." Think,
Christian, the apostle Paul did not even have the complete
word of God! At least four books were written after
his death [John’s books] and he quite likely did not see all the
existing NT epistles while he was alive!
(19)If the KJV can "correct"the
inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed
out by God"need correction or
Who believes this? Send me a quote.
Talk about "straw-man" arguments.
Since most "KJV-Onlyites"believe the KJV is the inerrant
"scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2
Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man: but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,"would you not therefore reason
thus — "For the King James
Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God
translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
Boy, talk about desperate attempts.
No, 2 Peter 1:21 is referring to the giving of
prophecy. The KJ translators were not prophets. However, the
appear to have been guided by God [in a manner known only by Him] from
looking at their result—the KJB. God has used and
blessed it more than any other Bible in any
(21)Which reading is the verbally
(word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye"[Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom
KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
What does it matter? Take your
pick. The passage’s meaning is not affected either way. Looks
like a printer’s error.
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin"[Cambridge KJV's] or "sins"[Oxford KJV's] at 2
Again, take your pick. The term
"sin" can also mean "sins."
Who publishes the infallible "INERRANT KJV"?
Anybody who wants to. Apart from
typographical errors there should be no difference in any
edition from the major publishers [Cambridge, Oxford, Nelson,
etc.]. I have a reprint of the 1611 edition and there is no
difference between it and my Nelson or Cambridge 1769 editions that can
be HEARD while reading apart from the relatively few
typographical printing errors. Of course, there are many
spelling and punctuation differences but these do not affect the words
and their meaning.
Larry Pierce, editor of the Online
Bible claims versions 6 and later of his Bible software contains the exact
King James Bible text of the 1769 edition as provided by
Cambridge Publishers in England.
He said Sharp Electronics of Japan spent a considerable amount of money
verifying the accuracy of his KJB text. This digital edition of the KJB
is easily and
freely available to anyone who wants it, thus anyone who
desires can print it themselves. [Don’t try to print a
copy of the NIV, though, Zondervan [its publisher] may sue you
Since the revisionsof the KJV from 1613-1850 made
(in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many
hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars
for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions,
prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words
— would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in
1611... or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769,
First, what you call "revisions of
the KJV" are not true revisions at all. These are
various editions printed to correct previous printing errors. Not
one edition was to "revise" the words.
The intent of these editions [apart from spelling and punctuation
updating] was to restore the original text given by the translators to
All of these versions are
inerrant apart from any typographical error. My Nelson KJB, a
recent, modern printing, spells "because" "bcause" in one place. Does
this mean it is not inerrant? Only in the warped mind of an "Autograph
How do you know, KJB critic, that
the original autographs didn’t have typographical errors in them?
Can you prove your answer from Scripture? Can you
prove Peter, a poor fisherman, dotted every "i" and crossed
every "t" so to speak in his autographs?
Why he might have even misspelled an word or two or even used bad
grammar! I have
read "scholars" who claimed Peter’s language and grammar is
Luke’s. What a revelation! What about the scribes or writters who
actually penned these words after they were
spoken? Tertius penned Romans [Rom 16:22]. How do you know he didn't
make a mistake since he was neither prophet or apostle? These
kind of questions really give you people fits, don’t
they? You pompous egomaniacs don’t even know how to
respond to such questions. That’s because you have locked
yourself into a "logic tight" belief system that won’t
even allow God in. Pathetic; Pitiful.
I asked a similar question to Rick
response to a letter he sent me a few years ago and he couldn’t
come up with a sensible reply. Here is what I
However, how do you know the
autographs didn't have typos in them? Chapter and verse?....2
Peter 1:21 says "...holy men of God SPAKE...,"
often someone else wrote it down (Jer. 36:32). Can you prove they
always wrote it down correctly? What about Peter's "bad grammar" in his
epistles? Scholars say his grammar is much inferior to
Luke's. Is errors in grammar "inspired"? You have plenty of obstacles
to overcome with "logic." Isn't it easier to trust God?
All Norris could come up with for a
Do you have a
Biblical concept of inerrancy? It is clear that inerrancy defined with
reference to the Bible is absolutely no errors of any type
or kind. Logically by definition, it is undeniably true that an
inerrant Bible could not have misprints since misprints are still
He claims to have a "completely
Biblical concept of inerrancy" that won’t allow an "error" of any
kind, but the problem is he cannot Scripturally prove his
"concept"! His concept of inerrancy is "logically derived" by feeble
human logic, not Scripturally derived. Of course, Norris
cannot produce his final authority, none of his kind can. It is
a fantasy Bible that doesn't exist.
Would you contend that God waited until a king named "JAMES" sat
on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in
English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory"that praises this king as "most
Majesty's Royal Person..." —IF the historical FACT was
revealed to you that King James was a practicing
homosexual all of his life? [documentation
— Antonia Fraser — "King James VI of
Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123
|| Caroline Bingham — "The Making of a King"
Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J.
Scott — "James I" Mason-Charter
Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H.
Wilson — "King James VI ∓mp; I" Oxford
Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337,
383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
[Since he apparently could not come
up with any
more relevant questions, Hudson starts making personal, ad hominem
attacks. Typical behavior.]
God did not have to wait on anyone
to give His
word as He wants the English speaking people to have it. Who claims
that he had to wait?
The King James translators were honoring
the king as the Bible says [1 Peter 2:17]. Even if James was a
sodomite history reveals he was a much more
tolerant king than those in Peter’s day.
The charge that James was a
sodomite is often
used by enemies of the AV. Even if he was it would not affect the
integrity of the translation. James did not translate
one word of the Bible that bears his name. He only authorized
its translation in 1603. There is also information in print that states
James was against homosexuality.
Furthermore, there indications that one of James’s enemies
started this rumor after his death.
Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson,
who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God
in translating"even though he was an
alcoholic that "drank his fill daily"throughout the work? [Gustavus
S. Paine — "The Men Behind the
KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
Who knows who is led by God and who
isn’t? Only an arrogant, conceited Bible corrector would
presume to know such things. Was the murderer Moses led by
God? Was the adulterer David led by God? Was the polygamous Solomon led
by God? How can one prove if a person is led by God or not?
Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing,"in the KJV at James 2:3, could
give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
I suppose. Some people can get the
wrong impression from anything. Some misguided souls get the
wrong impression from 2 Tim. 3:16 and think the term "Scripture" in the
passage refers to only the "original autographs." Any person who wants the truth will find the truth. You
can't blame the Bible because some people wish to remain
(28)Did dead people "wake up"in
the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
There is no "wake up" in
Isaiah 37:36. Did you not think we would check the passage,
Hudson? We do find in the verse where some people "arose" and found
who had been smitten by the angel were now "all dead corpses."
(29)Was "Baptist"John's last
name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Yes, if you want to call it that.
"Christ" could be called Jesus’s last name for that matter.
(30)Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in
the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader?
ye Corinthians, our mouth
is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us,
but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the
same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also
enlarged." As clearly understood from the New
International Version [NIV] — "We
have spoken freely to you,
Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding
our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a
—I speak as to my children
wide your hearts also."
It makes sense to those who want
the sense of it. Who said the Bible was supposed to read like
a cheap novel? Sometimes it takes a little effort to get the
gist of a passage.
Furthermore, after all the hype
above about the KJB supposedly "correcting the Greek," why do
you use the NIV here which adds words to the passage not found in the
Apparently you believe the NIV "corrects the Greek" since you use it
instead of the Greek. Your duplicity is evident to all, Hudson. You
have different standards for the KJB
than you do the NIV.
Does the singular "oath's,"occurring in every KJV at Matthew
14:9 and Mark 6:26, "correct"every Textus Receptus Greek
which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611
publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
So you will accept the NIV’s
adding of words not found in any Greek text, but you not accept the
reading of "oath’s"? The translators were following the
context in these passages and translated accordingly. There is
only one "oath" referred to in the passages [Matt. 14:7].
(32)Did Jesus teach a way for men to
be "worshiped"according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the
first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? [Remember
— you may not go the Greek for
any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
There is no need to go to the
Greek. All one needs to do is look up the definitions of
"worship" in any good dictionary. You will find the term can
as, "greatness of character;
honor; dignity; worthiness" in addition to worshipping God.
Is the Holy Spirit an "it"according to John 1:32; Romans
8:16, 26; and
1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again — you may not
go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Yes. Christ is also called "it" in
What’s your problem. "It" is a common expression for people in
[Who’s there? "It’s me!]
(34)Does Luke 23:56 support a
"Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in
No. As for there being no "day" in
Greek, then what kind of Sabbath was it if it wasn’t a
Sabbath Day? Where is the "commandment" for a Sabbath other
than a Sabbath day?
(35)Did Jesus command for a girl to
be given "meat"to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or,
"of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Sure. Of course you know that
"meat" means food in the Bible. "Flesh" in the Bible means "meat" as we
use it today.
(36)Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon
a "Bible-corrector"for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved
in hope," instead of the KJV's
"saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol
27, , page 485 — see more Spurgeon KJV comments in , his
∓mp; many others' views in the article,
Indeed he was. I’m glad you
recognized it. "Saved by hope" is correct.
(37)Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector"for saying that the correct
rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit,"and
for saying that "repent and turn"in Acts 26:20 should be "repent,
even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate,
1934, pgs. 108, 116]
Yes, same here. You don’t get
the picture do you, Hudson. Anyone who corrects the Bible is a
Bible-corrector. Norris did a lot of things in his ministry
right, but this is one area where he is dead wrong.
Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate"
"The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect'
semantic area of words differs between languages
so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of
John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect
equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]."?
I don’t know about being an
Apostate," but from this statement one can see he is [was] a very
narrow-minded and presumptuous man. Imagine someone
saying it is impossible for God to make a "perfect" translation of a
word. "Impossible" means impossible.
(38)Was R. A. Torrey "lying"when he said the following in
1907 — "No
one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible
is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many
is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible
and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially
accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally
given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
Could not Torrey just have been
mistaken instead of lying? "Lying" means he intended to deceive. I will
give him the benefit of the doubt. Torrey
apparently ran in limited circles since he did not encounter any one
who believed the Bible they had [KJB] was infallible. Or did
he mean only "orthodox scholars"?
(39)Is Don Edwards correct in
agreeing "in favor of canonizing our
replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The
Flaming Torch, June 1989, page
I don’t know the context of
Edward’s statement but let’s look at the definitions,
canonize -ized, -izing
1 to declare (a deceased person) a saint in formal church
2 to glorify
3 to put in the Biblical canon
4 to give church sanction or authorization to
The 1st and 3rd definitions
can’t apply, but why can’t the 2nd and 4th? Can a
church or group not "glorify" the KJB? Can an independent church not
"sanction" or "authorize" the KJB for use? I don’t see
why not. You do believe in religious freedom, don’t you?
As for replacing the "inspired
canon in Hebrew and Greek," does this mean you believe the
available Greek and Hebrew texts are "the inspired canon"? As
another has said, "Hebrew for the Hebrews, Greek for the Greeks,
English for the English and we will all be fine."
Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original
languages to English"in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?
[same page above]
I don’t know about "move His
word" but I believe He definitely did COPY His word in all its
purity to the English language in 1611. The methods He used
are unknown to me and I don’t profess to know even in the
slightest how God "moves" things or people, but I believe He does it. I
believe God has kept His promises and preserved His
word, and we who speak English have been greatly blessed in that He has
chosen to preserve it in English. Unlike the "archaic" Greek
language which is idolized by the "Autograph Only"
God has given man His word in the most prominent
and expressive language on earth today—English.
The Results of the Questions
The statement we made
earlier that these questions are rhetorical in nature should now be
clear to the reader. There are no answers we could give that
would be acceptable to Hudson and his crowd; their minds are
made up. For the most part these questions were sarcastic
comments on the position of Bible believers. Only
around 10 questions could be considered legitimate.
The reader should also
note that Hudson doesn't hesitate to claim the KJB is not the pure word
of God, but he doesn't offer what he believes to be the
pure word in its place.
This is a universal trait among Bible correctors. They campaign to
destroy one's confidence in the KJB [or any Bible for that matter] but
offer NOTHING in
return but unbelief!
How does it harm them for believers to believe they have the pure word
of God in tangible form? Why do they so desperately attempt to
undermine this belief? I have my
ideas, but the fact remains they greatly resent that many
Christians believe they have the pure word of God in the King James
and they resort to desperate means to try to
convince them they are wrong. It's not that they have evidence to prove
that the KJB is not pure and they offer a translation they believe is
pure, they offer NOTHING but unbelief!
They insist no Bible in any language is [or can be] inerrant and pure.
Although I believe the
NIV is a corrupt imitation of God's word, I would have more
respect for a person who believed it was inerrant and pure and
treated it as such than I do for these
clowns who have "logically deduced" that no pure Bible is possible.
Every saint in the Bible could produce the Scriptures they
without reservation. They believed they had access to the pure,
inerrant words of God. These "Autograph Only" "experts" can produce no
Bible at all. Why would any believer
Check the following works for more information on Bible