|
BARRY'S (THE BIBLE CORRECTOR'S) 65 QUESTIONS
(Questioning the King James Version)
YEA HATH GOD SAID?
By: Dr. Herb Evans
THE WICKED HAVE LAID A SNARE FOR ME: YET I
ERRED NOT FROM THY PRECEPTS. -- PS. 119:110
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?
Answer:
It was never revised; it was edited. The New King James is a real revision and is corrupt. An edition is not a
revision. The majority of the changes were spelling and punctuation and grammatical changes due to an English that
was being refined and standardized. We will settle on the 1769 as being the inspired word of God in English. It’s
what I use. But then, what is your definition of inspiration? Will you reason from the scriptures or from your
contemporary extra-scriptural sources and man-made theology? --
Evans
The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts.
-- Ps. 119:110
. . . reasoned with them OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES . . .
-- Acts 17:2
2. What Bible would these KJV Advocates recommend, since before 1611 there was no Bible (according to
them)?
Answer:
I would recommend the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensians and also any English Bible except the Rheims prior to 1611
over anything else that has come along since with the understanding that they were not intentional corruptions but
did have some minor flaws that needed the refinement process. Still, the question is not what I would recommend for
those of that era; it is what they would recommend for themselves without you or me dictating to them after the
fact. We cannot speak for them and neither can they speak for us. Printed Bibles did not precede the Gutenberg
(1450-56) in Germany. England's first printing press was in 1477. The English people, except for the Geneva Bible,
did not possess very many bibles prior to 1611. The English language, the English Bible, and the medium for the
Bible were all being refined at the very same time within less than 76 years, 1535 to 1611. --
Evans
The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of EARTH, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES.
-- Ps. 12:6
3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the
apocrypha?
Answer:
The very word, “Apocrypha,” as defined in English, should tell you that being contained in the original Bible does
not mean being recognized as Scripture, any more than the maps and preface and concordance in your present Bible
are recognized as scripture. The Apocrypha was placed - not in the O.T. nor in the N.T. - but in between, clearly
designating that it was not scripture. Still, is this not the pot calling the kettle black in that your favorite
Alexandrian source texts contained the Apocrypha? --
Evans
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures . . .
-- Matt. 22:29
| 
