- Was there no inspired Word of God prior to the AV of 1611? If there was not, then God did not faithfully preserve His Word. If there was, then how can the AV be the only “real” Bible?
- Are English-speakers the only ones with a “real” Bible? If not, then there are multiple “real” Bibles — why not multiple “real” Bibles in English?
- If the AV is consistent with the early church’s understanding of the text and canon, why does it include the Apocrypha?
- If vernacular Bibles (such as the KJV) are inspired (rather than the originals being inspired, and vernacular Bibles being good or bad translations), then why can’t a Bible in the current vernacular be legitimate?
- If the KJV is inspired, why did the translators clearly claim it was not perfect?
- If the newer translations are problematic because of their supposed parallels with Jehovah’s Witness “Bibles,” how do you explain the routine KJV translation of, “our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” as “God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” which implies two separate people and is employed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses? (See, for example, 2 Pe. 1:1.)
- Why are all translations other than the KJV lumped together, rather than being evaluated on their own merits? (In other words, why are the flaws of the NIV used to discredit all other translations, including those which are textually unrelated to it?)
- Why is an entire doctrine based on the teachings of one woman?
- Why should we trust Gail Riplinger’s scholarship? Because of her degrees (in architecture/design-related fields)? Because she’s taught ESL? (So has my mother, who doesn’t speak any other languages except some rusty French and would tell you that she doesn’t know anything about textual criticism.) Because she demonstrates a good grasp of logic? (Take a quick look at the Bluedorns’ “Short List of Fallacies.”) Because she’s proven herself to be psychologically sound? (The letter “s” is Satanic? Acrostic algebra?) Because her facts and citations have been demonstrated to be consistently accurate? (See the next question.)
- Have you verified the claims in the KJV-only literature? (Checking, first, that the factual claims are literally, factually correct. If so, then checking that the conclusions drawn from these facts are logically sound.)
- On what biblical basis can the claim be supported that the KJV is to be the standard, rather than the original manuscripts? (Or, if the Textus Receptus is considered the standard, why are non-KJV translations which more accurately reflect the TR not considered at least legitimate, if not preferable?)
Leave a Reply