12. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use
an old English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Answer:
Most of the so called archaic language is not really archaic, as shown by Laurence Vance in his book, where he
demonstrates many of those words being used in modern publications. He also demonstrates how much of the so called
archaic language is necessary to convey the Hebrew and Greek idioms and tenses. We might add that the HOLY
scriptures are not to be read "casually." It is the preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of a given
passage. It is not a Christian’s job to dumb down God's word. -- Evans
So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the SENSE, and caused them to understand the
reading.
-- Neh. 8:8
13. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each
translation when they copyright the materials on their Webster, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do
they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will
soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write
[sic] their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Answer:
Good question, but it does not apply to me. I just recently and publicly came out against Christians copyrighting
their endeavors. Perhaps, not for your reason, but I had plenty of other reasons. My motto is freely received,
freely given. So, I do find fault with the modern copyrighted Bible practice without being guilty of your implied
double standard. I suspect filthy lucre in all this modern translation, copyright business as well as the love of
money being the root of that evil. --
Evans
. . . freely ye have received, freely give . . .
-- Matt. 10:8
. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us received it not as the word of men, but as it is in
truth, the word of God . . .
-- 1 Thess. 2:13
14. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV
doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship?” (Reject the original in favour of the
translation)
Answer:
Again, which TR and which GREEK? I think it would be equally ridiculous to worship a language such as Hebrew and
Greek, especially if a man could not fluently read, speak, and understand it. And especially, if one did not know
which Greek and Hebrew to worship. Christians worship God in spirit and truth not in uncertainty and confusion. How
one worships is as important as what one worships. "Trust in God" versus "trust in man" are the options. Which one
do you think you have picked? I think it would be equally ridiculous to dogmatically call the TR the original, when
it is but an assumption without a verse and chapter, especially when one does not know which TR to title as the
Original. Without a perfect Greek or Hebrew Text, how do you Alexandrians expect to correct something which you
claim is not correct? I think that it would be equally ridiculous to say that the English KJB has errors upon the
say so and interpretation of others, who parrot others, who learned their Greek rules of grammar from an infidel,
third or fourth hand. --
Evans
. . . thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name . . .
-- Ps. 138:2
| 
