One thing that I've noticed in forums such as this is that the most important issue is rarely raised and even more rarely given any credo by the readers. That issue is the Greek text from which modern translations are translated from. The sad fact is that in the 1880's a new greek text was derived by Westcott & Hort primarily from two very old manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codes Vaticanus. Dean Burgon devoted his life to exposing the dreadful corruptions and deficiencies of these texts. These manuscripts were so different from each other that Westcott & Hort had to invent a whole lot of rules adapted from modern textual criticism to decide for themselves which reading they were going to select. T
The result was the Critical Text from which all modern translations are sourced. The resulting Greek Text is very corrupt. Many thousands of words were omitted from this manuscript as compared to the Textus Receptus. Even entire verses and passages of the bible are missing from this Critical Text. Very few people take the time to research the monstrous thing that was done to the reputation and quality of the scripture back in the 1880's most people don't care and don't think it is an issue.
The guy who wrote the list of ten questios certainly has not researched the issue. Most of the questions are infantile. They also attack the most extreme KJV-Onlyist argument assuming that if that can be shot down in flames that all KJV-Only arguments are defeated. This is a standard technique of debaters and politicians.
By attacking extreme and ridiculous arguments on the opposing side the debaters seeks to discredit the opponent. The opponent will spend so much time defending himself against the stupid accusations that he will never get a chance to present the weighty and sensible arguments.
1. Is/was the Latin Vulgate the word of God? Why or why not?
The church in the west used this as their Bible up until the 14th century even after the Latin language died out. If the Latin Vulgate was not the word of God then the church in the west did not have a Bible for over 1400 years. Would God leave his servants without a Bible?
2. Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the word of God? why or why not?
Same argument as above. This question attacks an extreme and ridiculous KJV-Only argument that the KJV is the only inspired bible that there ever was. The LXX was the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was used by the early church and many of the apostles. This is the Bible that Paul would have referred to when he said " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: "
3. Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the word of God? Why or why not?
Same argument as above. All of these were excellent translations from the Textus Receptus. If these were not the word of God, then English Christians did not have a Bible.
4. Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)
This is a shameful leading question which makes the reader assume that there is a corrupted version of the KJV. Most of thousands of corrections (as they are inappropriately called) to the KJV in the various editions were as a result of dramatic changes to the spelling of words during the period of the KJV. The most dramatic change in the history of the KJV which caused a huge storm of protest in the last edition was a change in the book of Nahum from Nahum 3:16 Where the cankerworm no longer fleeth but instead did flieth. Hardly to be compared to the corrections which the modern translations deem to make.
5. Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
Emphasis on the words "Differ slightly" and Oh so very slightly. Please provide examples of these slight difference. What a contrast between the modern translations which all have to differ from one another by up to 15% in order to obtain a copyright licence. Did you know that Zondervan is now owned by Rupert Murdoch publishing. Do we really want the Bible in the hands of commercial interests?
6. In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".
What is the question? Is there a problem being inferred here which the modern translations correct? In no way. The KJV has [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]790,704 words and the NIV has only 726,606. Entire passages and words have been scrapped not to mention the jots and tittles.[/FONT]
7. Define "circular argument" and give an example.
This is not a question. Please substitue with something sensible
8. When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
I'm not sure what the point is here. Is this an argument to say that the KJV is not infallible or that no bibles are infallible. The most fallible interpreting tool is the human brain.
9. Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?
As in points above. God's word was preserved in the Old Latin, LXX, Great, Bishops and in the last several hundred years the KJV. This question also assumes the most ridiculous KJV-Only argument.
10. The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.
Any of the above translations would suffice as the final authority. This assumes that there were major theological contradictions and gross disparities between the old English Bibles. This was not the case. The differences were trivial and minor usually spellling or order of words.
