Another KJV Critic

Some of the most hateful e-mails I get are from professing Christians who hate the KJV. They try to convince me that no Bible is 100% accurate. How in the world can such a person witness to the lost and convince them that Jesus is the Son of God if the Bible is not true? Weird. [2015 update: please read the last portions of Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?]

The following is my response to another KJV critic. I've bolded the writer's comments. Were the answers well-received? Of course, not! He got mad because I had reasonable answers. Most people don't want to hear the truth if it is inconsistent with their practice.

In other words, if a person reads the NIV, they don't want to hear that a reported homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra, was Chairman of the Old Testament Committee. They don't want to hear about lesbian Virginia Mollenkott. They don't want to hear that their Bibles water down the deity of Christ...I do digress...

I received a vociferous e-mail in response to the following. Of course, the Bible mandates that I not do a second round with this person.

"I think you should mention in your section on Bibles that interlinears are tops because they do give the very word-for-word Bible to us--zero paraphrasing." [More than one person would take exception to that statement. The King James Bible uses formal equivalency and not dynamic equivalency]

Having read my position on the KJV, I'm sure you'll understand that I will not suggest anything other than the KJV. It is enough.

"Now, while some charges against the new versions are justified, others are credentials in Hebrew or Greek,"

Since when does the Bible say that we have to be scholars? It doesn't. You are talking "scholarolatry" (if that is a word). It's a new paradigm that many like yourself have bought into. You can't know the truth without a scholar. The Bible tells us the Holy Ghost is the teacher, none other required.

..the woman...basically talks off the top of her head with what she thinks is correct. This idea that "the Christ" is New Age, as opposed to just "Christ," is absolute stupidity.

I am not sure which article to which you refer, but in looking at this I have two comments:

  1. the person is giving an opinion to be accepted or rejected. I'm sure that you do not explain EVERY statement that you make--life would be awfully boring if you did.
  2. concerning "the Christ" versus "Christ" maybe if we think about it a little more we'll remember that there is a coming anti-christ who may call himself the Christ when he is actually anti--there are already people doing that including new agers. With over 1,000 people coming to our site every week I hear from such people. Somebody wrote saying they have found the new incarnation--and they quote from this woman's book of mumbo-jumbo. As I said, I don't know which article you refer to but off the top of my head I wouldn't say that ["the Christ" point] is "stupid" because there may be some validity to her opinion.

"It would be better to get the opinion of Greek and Hewbrew scholars"

You've got to be kidding! Those people are TEARING down the faith of young people (and old people too) in the word of God and it is a tragedy! I hear from these wretched souls continually! I have a Bible (the word of God) and I have the Holy Ghost (who is the ultimate teacher) as a blood bought, born-again child of God. I need nothing else!

When I go to church I go prepared with the word in my heart and the Holy Ghost all over me in order to be further edified--I go strong in Jesus in order to receive what the Lord placed on the Pastor's heart. I don't have to learn from scholars! That is a fallacy! I have yet to hear ONE thing from their lips that has edified my knowledge in God.

"Eh-hem, er..., the original Greek says..."

Not ONE time has this deepened my understanding. [If anything, the person saying it looks wicked trying to correct the word!]

" most cases, 99%, they [new versions] are accurate enough."

I perceive your figure is [far] too high.

"Now, I think it is time to scrutinize the KJV. Who were the translators? How do we know they were reliable men? King James himself was a devil..."

You speak and know not whereof you speak, but I do. The King James translators formed a group unequalled today. In fact, I am researching them for an article and a tv show I am doing. They were deans at Cambridge, Oxford, Westminster. They were Pastors. They were PhDs. They were REAL scholars.

They wrote Persian, Syrian lexicons and dictionaries, debated in Greek, one read the entire Bible in Hebrew by the time he was six. They spoke Greek and studied so much they'd forget how to speak english. One knew 15 languages FLUENTLY. Vacations were spent mastering other languages. They spoke not only the Aramic, Greek and Hebrew they spoke the RELATED languages. They didn't have tv and the junk that today's pseudo-scholars do. These were LEARNED men and on top of that they were HOLY men. I'm glad you asked that question, for I know much about these men and there is much much more!

You say King James was a devil--why don't you check out one of his writings that I have on the site, Basilicon Doron? I didn't include all three books of it but the Cambridge University Press says its one of the most important works of that period. Look and see how he so eloquently quoted the scripture and told his son how to live the Christian life....His treatise on marriage is one of the best ever written.

Did you know that [King James] even wrote tracts? No, I'm sure you didn't. Did you know that King James wrote the evangelistic charter to share Christ with the Native Americans? No, I'm sure you didn't. Did you know that the King was physically handicapped and needed a personal helper at all times? Did you know he had chronic illnesses that kept him bedridden? Did you know he survived attempts on his life from the Catholic religion (the Gunpowder Plot--substantiated)? Oh, you didn't? Then why in the world would you call him a devil if you don't know anything about him? Mmm? [update: and the King testified of The Mother and identified the pope of Rome as antichrist. Rome tried to kill him in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (history from the time of that treason has important keys for us today).]

I have two articles that are about to be published by the author of an excellent treatise on King James--if you want some schooling you can check [them] out sometime. [update: see our King James VI & I Page]

"a man who promised the pope that he would become a Catholic"

Oh, you didn't read in Basilicon Doron where he said that he is no papist (in 1599 BEFORE he became King of England)? You didn't read where the Roman Catholic Ambassor said that "The King is an enemy of our religion."? I think you have been duped by people that have a reason to shake your faith. You seem to want people to wake up to tribulation facts, are you willing to wake up to KJV facts? There is at least one article on the man King James on the site... [update: there are now many important articles about King James on this website.]

"This was no man of God,"

I say he was. Are you sure about your position (I advise you get some schooling before you answer)?

"and yet you have no qualms about his name being on the only Godly version of the Bible."

The more I read of his writings, the more I love King James! Am I saying he was sinless? No way. [I know him as a saint of God.] But I am saying he wasn't what you've been duped into believing. I also say I ain't sinless and neither are you--that's a fact (Rom 3:23).

"Well, why would this version be the only one accepted by God?"

See above and see the site!

"King James surely knew Shakespeare as a friend.."

They were friends, and....? Do you know any unbelievers? Do you have lunch with them, talk with them? work them perhaps? What does that mean about you? Do you ever engage in anything that is not church related? Do you watch the news? What do you watch on tv? What does that say about you? That you are a bad person? A non-Christian? If not, then you shouldn't apply that standard to a man who has been dead since 1625. You've judged him and don't even realize most of the lies about him today came from people who hated him them and [from] those who hate the Bible that bears his name now. [update: Shakespeare was the subject of Queen Elizabeth of England. After the queen died, King James took her place as the reigning monarch of England (he was already the king of Scotland, he brought the two crowns together) and Shakespeare became one of his subjects.]

"[Shakespeare] not being a very religious person, his involvement in the KJV was not disclosed to the public, but he did leave a very nice clue to prove he had at least been involved with the Psalms, or so it seems to me. For the 46th word in the 46th Psalm is "shake," and the 46th word backwards in the same 46th Psalm is "spear."

And you called that lady's comment stupid? ... That "shakes" "peare" silliness was on one of [those] mystery shows! [Those] shows certainly aren't religious! What REAL evidence do you have Shakespeare wrote the Bible? In all probability, none. [update: article, "Who were the KJV translators?"]

"Makes sense, doesn't it, that he would be asked to write the poetic book of Psalms?"

So God didn't write the Bible? Shakespeare did? You've told me in your e-mail you don't believe we have the word of God today and that they all have mistakes--that is not good especially if you are trying to lead someone to believe what the Bible says. I'm going to leave this one alone. [update: the Bible teaches that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Shakespeare did not "write" Psalms, he was not even alive. His name is not on the list of translators. One could think of further ways to answer this...]

"But where are his [Shakespeare's] credentials as a translator, or as a man of God?"

Where is Shakespeare's name on the list of translators? It [IS NOT] there. There is a list you know. If I were you I wouldn't share these unsubstantiated theories with anyone...they will make you look real bad to those that know.

" is a quote from Britannica concerning the KJV...'it avoided uniform literalness of translation in favor of a rich use of synonym.' In other words, it abandoned the normal or street language of the Biblical manuscripts. [the KJV gives the word of God] a highly theatrical taste, and theatre has a way of distorting real life sitiuations."

Can you show me any scripture (chapter and verse) to support this scholarly analysis or am I to take your word and the word of the world? I'll take God's word that says no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. [update: with years, we know more and one could really start wondering who this individual was who came up with all these wild claims. When this person (or modern sources) is talking about "Biblical manuscripts" they are typically talking about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus--THEY CAME OUT OF ROME! OUT FROM HER--THE GREAT WHORE OF REVELATION 17. She has been known historically for falsifying the scriptures]

" is going a bit too far to say Satan's sons wrote the translations."

I didn't say that. I said Satan is behind it. Satan provoked David to number Israel and he is provoking some saved men (and some infiltrating liberals and Catholics) to write pseudo-Bibles.

"Again, who were the KJV translators? Were they any better? Any idea?"

They were INFINITELY better. This discussion urges me to finish a treatise on this very topic, and yes I do have a very good idea about them. We need some schooling--class is in session and the Holy Ghost is in the house! [update: KJV Translators]

"By the way. I like you."

I like you too. You told me straight what you think and I hope you can handle my straight talk [he couldn't].

| Eternal Life | Hell is Real | The Gospel According to John |
| My Testimony |Why I Read the Authorized KJV Bible|
| The Hymnal | Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ |
| Epistle Dedicatory to the Authorized King James of 1611 |