A coupla acquaintances came to my home the other eve, bearing Dr. Sam Gipp's "Answer Book". I dub it the "WRONG Answer Book". Here are the CORRECT answers to some of the Qs in that book:
* Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?
Yes, IF WE HAD THEM. Since we don't, we must TRUST GOD to have presented His word to us AS HE CHOSE.
* Was King James a homosexual?
Doubtful. He fathered SEVEN children. The story that he was gay was started some 25 years after KJ's death by one Thomas Weldon, who hated KJ for booting him outta the king's court. At least Gipp got THIS one right.
* Aren't archaic words in the KJV in need of updating?
No, the KJV should not be tinkered with at all, as its makers are long dead. When it was made, its language was as modern as any English on earth. That's why we have new translations God causes to be made, to update the language of His word.
* Haven't there been several revisions of the KJV?
Yes. Anyone thinking otherwise need only to sit down with an AV 1611 & 1769 Blayney's Edition, the most-commonly-used KJV edition of today, and compare them.
* Aren't modern translations based on better manuscripts?
Generally older, but not necessarily better. The most accurate translations are made from an eclectic assortment of manuscripts.
* If we have a perfect Bible in English, don't we need one in every other language?
That's up to GOD.
* Should the italicized words in the KJV be removed?
No. They're there to clarify the translation in English. Every English translation has words added for clarity.
* Aren't there some great men who use other versions?
Yes.
* Where was the Bible before 1611?
In the accurate translations of the day, such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Bishop's, Geneva, as well as in their sources that were translated.
* Can someone get saved if you are using something other than the KJV?
Of Course! JESUS does the saving, not any Bible version!
* When someone is led to Christ by someone using a particular version, doesn't that mean that version is God's word?
Of course it does. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God.
* Aren't KJV believers just mean-spirited name-callers?
In many cases, yes. But not all. Many are KJVO by personal preference, having nothing to do with the KJVO myth. It's the MYTH that is the source of trouble, and not the KJV itself.
* Don't King James Bible believers worship the KJV?
Unfortunately, YES, some do. However, they're a tiny minority, and are best simply ignored. An example is "Pastor" Steven Anderson of Tempe, AZ. He has a "church" in his home. He has stated he WORSHIPS THE KJV as it's the "word" of John 1:1! Here's his website:
faithfulwordbaptist.org/index.html
Read his essays to see he's a full-fledged NUT in the manner of "Pastor" Fred Phelps, only Anderson has a different drum to beat besides homosexuality.
Didn't God destroy the originals because He didn't want these people to venerate them?
I cannot answer for certain, but this is as good a reason as any. Another could be that He wants us to believe by FAITH, and if we had any object that specifically, beyond a doubt, was made by God, it wouldn't be by faith, but by empirical evidence.
* Is it "heresy" to believe that the King James Bible is perfect?
No, but it's incorrect.
* Do Christians and preachers who use other bibles hate God?
No. That's a KJVO lie.
* Was the KJV inspired or preserved?
Yes, same as any other valid version, no more, no less.
* Can a translation be inspired?
Yes, of course. But NOT in the same degree that the originals were.
* Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?
No.
* A translation can't be as good as the originals, can it?
No. The subtleties and nuances of one language cannot be completely translated into another language. Anyone disagreeing can take it up with GOD, as HE made all languages, and still oversees them.
* Isn't the Holy Spirit incorrectly called "it" in Romans 8:26?
No, not by 1611 usage.
* Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?
Yes.
* Is the NKJV an improvement of the KJV?
No, it's a separate translation.
* Haven't manuscripts been found since the KJV was translated in 1611?
Yes, but none that add any new doctrines nor change any old ones.
* Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over Bible versions?
Yes. Very little "version fights" took place before the KJVO myth began. And remember, it was started by a CULT OFFICIAL, the 7th Day Adventist Dr. Ben Wilkinson.
* What about the "nuggets" only found in "the Greek," like agape vs phileo love?
They coulda been translated more perfectly in the KJV, but several other versions fail to differentiate also.
* Didn't the Textus Receptus appear after 1611?
No. It first appeared in 1517, was revised many times before 1611, and has been revised over 30 times altogether.
* Should we make an issue of Bible translations?
Only if one is using a clearly-bogus one such as "Good-As-New".
* Shouldn't we emphasize love for Jesus Christ rather than squabbling over Bible translations?
Yes...but remember, it was the KJVOs who started the squabbles. But Shame on us who know it's false if we sit by silently while the KJVOs continue to "hype the tripe" to the unsuspecting new Christians.
* Wasn't Erasmus a bootlicking papist?
He was a RC, but sometimes disagreed with some of their thingies.
* What if there really are errors in the KJV?
As is any other translation, it's the perfect word of God handled by imperfect men. And there ARE errors in the KJV, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Remember, Dr. Gipp makes a very poor defense of this obvious goof..
* Doesn't Ahazia's age in 2nd Kings 8:26 and 2nd Chronicles 22:2 prove that there is an error in the KJV?
No. Same as the differences given for Jehoiachin's age at the beginning of his reign(eighteen in Kings, eight in Chronicles), it does suggest there was an error made in the Hebrew. The translators made no error in translating what was before them. Same with the Goliath thingie. In 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV men added "the brother of" to this verse, even though it's NOT in the Hebrew, to make it coincide with 1 Chron. 20:5, which DOES say "Lahmi, the brother of". This makes sense, because David had whacked Goliath almost 40 years earlier. However, archaeology reveals that Goliath may have been a fairly common name at that time. Both Goliath and Lahmi, the name for G's brother in Chronicles, are HEBREW names.
Conclusion: Dr. Gipp is a less-than-reliable "authority" on the Bible.
* Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?
Yes, IF WE HAD THEM. Since we don't, we must TRUST GOD to have presented His word to us AS HE CHOSE.
* Was King James a homosexual?
Doubtful. He fathered SEVEN children. The story that he was gay was started some 25 years after KJ's death by one Thomas Weldon, who hated KJ for booting him outta the king's court. At least Gipp got THIS one right.
* Aren't archaic words in the KJV in need of updating?
No, the KJV should not be tinkered with at all, as its makers are long dead. When it was made, its language was as modern as any English on earth. That's why we have new translations God causes to be made, to update the language of His word.
* Haven't there been several revisions of the KJV?
Yes. Anyone thinking otherwise need only to sit down with an AV 1611 & 1769 Blayney's Edition, the most-commonly-used KJV edition of today, and compare them.
* Aren't modern translations based on better manuscripts?
Generally older, but not necessarily better. The most accurate translations are made from an eclectic assortment of manuscripts.
* If we have a perfect Bible in English, don't we need one in every other language?
That's up to GOD.
* Should the italicized words in the KJV be removed?
No. They're there to clarify the translation in English. Every English translation has words added for clarity.
* Aren't there some great men who use other versions?
Yes.
* Where was the Bible before 1611?
In the accurate translations of the day, such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Bishop's, Geneva, as well as in their sources that were translated.
* Can someone get saved if you are using something other than the KJV?
Of Course! JESUS does the saving, not any Bible version!
* When someone is led to Christ by someone using a particular version, doesn't that mean that version is God's word?
Of course it does. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God.
* Aren't KJV believers just mean-spirited name-callers?
In many cases, yes. But not all. Many are KJVO by personal preference, having nothing to do with the KJVO myth. It's the MYTH that is the source of trouble, and not the KJV itself.
* Don't King James Bible believers worship the KJV?
Unfortunately, YES, some do. However, they're a tiny minority, and are best simply ignored. An example is "Pastor" Steven Anderson of Tempe, AZ. He has a "church" in his home. He has stated he WORSHIPS THE KJV as it's the "word" of John 1:1! Here's his website:
faithfulwordbaptist.org/index.html
Read his essays to see he's a full-fledged NUT in the manner of "Pastor" Fred Phelps, only Anderson has a different drum to beat besides homosexuality.
Didn't God destroy the originals because He didn't want these people to venerate them?
I cannot answer for certain, but this is as good a reason as any. Another could be that He wants us to believe by FAITH, and if we had any object that specifically, beyond a doubt, was made by God, it wouldn't be by faith, but by empirical evidence.
* Is it "heresy" to believe that the King James Bible is perfect?
No, but it's incorrect.
* Do Christians and preachers who use other bibles hate God?
No. That's a KJVO lie.
* Was the KJV inspired or preserved?
Yes, same as any other valid version, no more, no less.
* Can a translation be inspired?
Yes, of course. But NOT in the same degree that the originals were.
* Did the KJV translators claim divine inspiration?
No.
* A translation can't be as good as the originals, can it?
No. The subtleties and nuances of one language cannot be completely translated into another language. Anyone disagreeing can take it up with GOD, as HE made all languages, and still oversees them.
* Isn't the Holy Spirit incorrectly called "it" in Romans 8:26?
No, not by 1611 usage.
* Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?
Yes.
* Is the NKJV an improvement of the KJV?
No, it's a separate translation.
* Haven't manuscripts been found since the KJV was translated in 1611?
Yes, but none that add any new doctrines nor change any old ones.
* Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over Bible versions?
Yes. Very little "version fights" took place before the KJVO myth began. And remember, it was started by a CULT OFFICIAL, the 7th Day Adventist Dr. Ben Wilkinson.
* What about the "nuggets" only found in "the Greek," like agape vs phileo love?
They coulda been translated more perfectly in the KJV, but several other versions fail to differentiate also.
* Didn't the Textus Receptus appear after 1611?
No. It first appeared in 1517, was revised many times before 1611, and has been revised over 30 times altogether.
* Should we make an issue of Bible translations?
Only if one is using a clearly-bogus one such as "Good-As-New".
* Shouldn't we emphasize love for Jesus Christ rather than squabbling over Bible translations?
Yes...but remember, it was the KJVOs who started the squabbles. But Shame on us who know it's false if we sit by silently while the KJVOs continue to "hype the tripe" to the unsuspecting new Christians.
* Wasn't Erasmus a bootlicking papist?
He was a RC, but sometimes disagreed with some of their thingies.
* What if there really are errors in the KJV?
As is any other translation, it's the perfect word of God handled by imperfect men. And there ARE errors in the KJV, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Remember, Dr. Gipp makes a very poor defense of this obvious goof..
* Doesn't Ahazia's age in 2nd Kings 8:26 and 2nd Chronicles 22:2 prove that there is an error in the KJV?
No. Same as the differences given for Jehoiachin's age at the beginning of his reign(eighteen in Kings, eight in Chronicles), it does suggest there was an error made in the Hebrew. The translators made no error in translating what was before them. Same with the Goliath thingie. In 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV men added "the brother of" to this verse, even though it's NOT in the Hebrew, to make it coincide with 1 Chron. 20:5, which DOES say "Lahmi, the brother of". This makes sense, because David had whacked Goliath almost 40 years earlier. However, archaeology reveals that Goliath may have been a fairly common name at that time. Both Goliath and Lahmi, the name for G's brother in Chronicles, are HEBREW names.
Conclusion: Dr. Gipp is a less-than-reliable "authority" on the Bible.
