8. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Answer:
They did not know it, because they were not inspired, the very same reason that Paul, Moses, Matthew, and Mark did
not know it. You see, even the original writers were not inspired. Only the scriptures are said to be inspired, and
it is God that inspires His word - not men! Of course, come to think of it, the devil does inspire Bible
Correctors. -- Evans
. . . ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION . . .
-- 2 Tim. 3:16
9. Why were the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the
Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from the “Translator to the
Reader?”
Answer:
Do you really believe that these portions were inspired? If not, perhaps, that is the reason. Then again, what
American is interested in James of Scotland? Who reads those things anyway? Was it removed to save money on
printing? Paper? To have competitive pricing? What do you think? In your Bible Correcting paranoia, do you suppose
an ulterior motive? --
Evans
. . . MY words shall not pass away . . .
-- Matt. 24:35
. . . . MY words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy
seed, nor out of the mouth of THY SEED’s SEED, SAITH THE lord, FROM HENCEFORTH AND FOR EVER.
-- Isa. 59:21
10. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was
wrong and the KJV English is correct?
Answer:
Which Greek and which TR? Which difference? Whose interpretation of the Greek? The Greek language is very different
from English. Do you suppose that has something to do with it? The KJB does correct many corrupt Greek texts.
Still, what makes you think that the Greek is always correct? Does one of them always have to be wrong? Could there
be some reconciling factors that folks do not know about? Is it possible that both could be saying the same thing
then and now? Should we exercise the logic of faith based on scriptural principles or should we exercise
non-scriptural logic based upon the skepticism of men? -- Evans
. . . THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works . . .
-- 2 Tim 3:17
11. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be
necessary?
Answer:
Italics were included, not because they were "necessary," but because the translators were trying to be honest by
showing that the underlying word was neither there but implied in English (the way we speak), NOR the word was not
found in Greek/Hebrew but was found in another language or source. Without the italicized words, the sentences from
Greek would be mere fragments in English. Jesus would be left out of Luke 19:1, and the sentence would be without a
subject. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from any language to some other language. Why do
quoted words in italics in the English O.T. wind up without italics in the English N.T.? For example, the ox
treading out the "CORN?" --
Evans
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail . . .
-- Luke 16:17
| 
